Gujarat High Court
Amishkumar Pramodrai Vyas vs State Of Gujarat on 21 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14540/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14540 of 2019
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==========================================================
AMISHKUMAR PRAMODRAI VYAS
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HJ DHOLAKIA(5862) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS ROOPAL R PATEL(1360) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS. SURBHI BHATI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - STATE
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 21/08/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocates for the respective respondents waive service of notice of rule on behalf of respective respondents. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard at length for final hearing.
2. The present petition is filed by the petitioner for seeking the following reliefs:
"20.[A] Your Lordships may be pleased to admit and allow this petition.
Page 1 of 12 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Fri Aug 22 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 23 00:36:45 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14540/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/08/2025 undefined [B] Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order and/or by directing the respondent no. 2 to recommend the name of the petitioner herein to appoint for the post of Professor in Chemical engineering (Degree College Branch) Class-1 at Government Engineering College.
[C] Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to stay the execution, operation and implementation filling the same post which is vacant.
[D] Such other and further reliefs as may be deemed just and expedient may be granted."
FACTS OF THE CASE:-
3. Brief facts as stated in the memo of the petition are as under:
3.1 It is the case of the petitioner in this petition that by way of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner begs to challenge the action of the respondent authorities by not recommending the name of the petitioner for the post of Professor in chemical engineering in Government Engineering College, on the ground that validity of waiting list of petitioner is expired as per the resolution no. PSC-1089-3910-GA-2 dated 27-7-2018 Page 2 of 12 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Fri Aug 22 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 23 00:36:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14540/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/08/2025 undefined though the petitioner herein is the successful candidate in the personal interview and requisites all the qualifications as well as experience for the said post. An advertisement being Advertisement No. 22/2015-16 came to be issued in the year 2015-16 for the post of Professor in chemical engineering and since the petitioner being eligible for the same, applied for the said post. That in the interview for the same, which was held on 06.07.2017, out of all successful candidates, respondent no. 2 had put the petitioner at Sr.No.1 on waiting list in general category via result on website circular No. RCT-2015-3180-R-3 dated 07.07.2017. It is further the case of the petitioner in this petition that there were three candidates selected for direct selection. However, candidate at serial no. 1 amongst them did not report at the place of posting after appointment even after the extension period was over. Appointment letter of candidate at Sr.No. 1 was also cancelled by the Technical Education Department on 08.02.2019. Since, he used all his time limits and did not join the duty till date the petitioner made a representation to GPSC requesting to recommend his name for the same. 3.2 It is further the case of the petitioner in this petition that the GPSC refused to recommend the name of the petitioner in its reply dated 19.02.2019 stating that in the scenario of direct appointment the deadline of the candidates Page 3 of 12 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Fri Aug 22 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 23 00:36:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14540/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/08/2025 undefined in the waiting list is two years or until the result of the next examination whichever comes first. In the present scenario of the Advertisement No. 22/2016-17 the results were announced on 12.07.2017 and because of that the waiting list is void automatically and no recommendation would be done to the department for the petitioner. It is further the case of the petitioner in this petition that at the time of Advertisement No. 22/2015-16 and Advertisement No. 22/2016-
17, no interview was scheduled for any of the advertisement. Later both the interviews were scheduled in a gap of one week time only i.e. interview for Advertisement No. 22/2015- 16 was scheduled on 06.07.2017 and interview for Advertisement No. 22/2016-17 on 12.07.2017. It is further the case of the petitioner in this petition that it is the question here that when it is known to the GPSC that the interview for the similar post is already scheduled two times in a gap of one week, why waiting list is prepared, especially when GPSC is aware about the rules mentioned in the reference letter.
3.3 It is further the case of the petitioner in this petition that that it is surprising to understand from the interpretation of the said rule that how GPSC that the second Advertisement (Advertisement 22/2016-17) is not an additional requirement for chemical engineering but it is to Page 4 of 12 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Fri Aug 22 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 23 00:36:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14540/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/08/2025 undefined fill the positions which will remain vacant from the interview scheduled on 06.07.2017 under Advertisement No. 22/2015-16 due to non-reporting of the selected candidate. It is further the case of the petitioner in this petition that in the result of second Advertisement No. 22/2016-17 also a waiting list is prepared. Further, when it is just to fill the vacant seats due to non-joining of the candidate selected under Advertisement No. 22/2015-16 there is no need of such waiting list. That there were three different Advertisements issued for the same post in a span of just eight months. However, the number of positions in each Advertisement is not same which indicates that all three advertisements must be considered separate and cannot be mixed with each other as the requirement itself is different. It is further the case of the petitioner in this petition that the interpretation and implementation of rule that GPSC mentioned in reference letters not correct for the present case and it is spoiling the career of an experienced and eligible candidate. It also affects the academics of state and students and lowering down the education level of Government Engineering Colleges. It is further the case of the petitioner in this petition that the action of the respondent no. 2 by not recommending the name of the petitioner for the post of Professor in Chemical Engineering against the non-joining of direct selected candidate is absolutely illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the Page 5 of 12 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Fri Aug 22 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 23 00:36:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14540/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/08/2025 undefined present petition has been preferred.
4. Heard Mr. H.J. Dholakia, learned advocate for the petitioner, Ms. Roopal Patel, learned advocate for the respondent No.2 and Ms. Surbhi Bhati, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent No. 1-State. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:-
5. Mr. H.J. Dholakia, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was listed in waiting list for the post of Professor in chemical engineering in Government Engineering College (Degree College Branch), Class-I at Government Engineering College. Pursuant to the advertisement given in the newspaper in the year 2015-16 by the GPSC, the petitioner was interviewed on 06.07.2017 for the said post by GPSC under that advertisement and was put at No. 01 on waiting list in general category. He has further submitted that list of selected for direct selection for the post of the three persons are as at Sr.No.1- Dr. Jalesh Lalitchandra Purohit, at Sr.No.2-Dr. Rajubhai Kanaiyalal Mewada and at Sr.No.3-Dr. Femina Jitendra Patel. He has further submitted that the candidates at Serial No. 2 and 3 were selected in general category quota and had reported in time for the appointment at the posting whereas candidate, who is selected at Serial No. 1 did not report at the place of Page 6 of 12 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Fri Aug 22 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 23 00:36:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14540/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/08/2025 undefined posting after appointment in stipulated duration mentioned in the appointment and posting letter. Further, he has submitted that thereafter, extension in joining period was allowed to the person at Serial No. 1 on his request but it has come to the knowledge of the petitioner herein that the candidate at Serial No. 1 has not reported at the place of posting and has not joined his duty. He has further submitted that thereafter though the post is vacant and instead of filling the vacant post by asking the petitioner, which is at Sr.No.1 in waiting list to join the services, fresh advertisement has been published and application is invited for one post between the period of 23.09.2025 to 08.10.2015. He has, therefore, submitted that such conduct on the part of the respondent is nothing but to exclude the present petitioner from the consideration more particularly the persons, who is at Sr.No.1 in the at the select list has ot joined the duty within its obligatory on the part of the respondent-Authority to fill up the post by asking the person from the waiting list and petitioner at Sr.No.1 instead of that, the advertisement is published by the respondent- Authority and, therefore, this action on the part of the respondent-Authority is not in accordance with law by depriving the right of the petitioner. He has further drawn the attention of this Court towards the communication received from the GPSC dated 19.02.2019, whereby it is Page 7 of 12 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Fri Aug 22 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 23 00:36:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14540/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/08/2025 undefined stated that waiting list is nto required to be considered in view of the subsequent advertisement in the newspaper for the remaining post and, therefore, he has submitted that this is nothing but to exclude the rightful claim of the petition for consideration for the post of Professor in chemical engineering in Government Engineering College. Therefore, he has submitted that the present petition is filed to get the appropriate relief from this Court.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT/S:- 6.1 Per contra, Ms. Roopal Patel, learned advocate for the respondent No.2 has submitted by referring to the affidavit- in-reply that pursuant to the earlier advertisement no. 22/2015-16 was concluded, recommendations were made on 15.7.2017. Thus, waiting list will remain in vogue till completion of two years from that date or publication of result of subsequent advertisement, whichever is earlier. She has further submitted that another advertisement to fill up said posts was advertisement no. 22/2016-17 and the result thereof was published on 12.07.2017. Thus, the waiting list would expire on 12.07.2017, whereas the seat has fallen vacant on account of not resuming duty by one of the selected candidates and the order of appointment was cancelled by the State Government on 08.02.2019. Thus, the waiting list has expired much prior to the vacancy. Page 8 of 12 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Fri Aug 22 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 23 00:36:45 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14540/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/08/2025 undefined 6.2 Furthermore, she has submitted by referring to the Resolution dated 7.07.2018 and also produced the Government Resolution dated 24.12.2018 and has submitted that in view of the G.R. more particularly Clause-3 for the limitation period, the time is to be considered for two years from the condition made by the GPSC. She has further submitted that the present petitioner has admitted filed the petition much after even the second advertisement is published. Moreover, she has further contended that thereafter subsequent advertisement is also published and recruitment process are concluded pursuant to such advertisement. Therefore, she has submitted that petitioner, who sought to challenge the procedure initiated pursuant to the advertisement of the year 2015-16 in the year 2019 and she has also submitted that it is also barred by delay and latches and, therefore, on that count also, the present petition is required to be dismissed.
7. Ms. Surbhi Bhati, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent No. 1-State has adopted the submissions made at the bar by the learned advocate for the respondent No.2 and has prayed that this Court may passed appropriate order.
Page 9 of 12 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Fri Aug 22 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 23 00:36:45 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14540/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/08/2025 undefined IN REJOINDER ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:-
8. In rejoinder, Mr. H.J. Dholakia, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that since the GPSC has informed the petitioner by communication dated 19.02.2019 that the waiting list is not required to be considered in view of subsequent advertisement, immediately the petitioner has preferred the present petition in June, 2019 and, therefore, it cannot be said that there is no delay cause. ANALYSIS:-
9.1 I have considered the rival submissions made at the bar. I have also considered the materials available on the record. Considering the fact that though the procedure is concluded pursuant to the advertisement published in the year 2015-16, i.e. Advertisement No. 22/2015-16 whereby there were requirement for three posts of Professor in Chemical Engineering in Government Engineering College. Pursuant to that, the petitioner has also participated in the process and also called for interview. After completion of such process, the GPSC has published the waiting list whereby three other candidates are selected and within three days, two candidates have already been appointed but candidate at Sr.No.1 has not joined the duty and thereafter, time is also extended for the candidate at Sr.No.1 and the present petitioner is kept in the waiting list at Sr.No.1. In the meantime, GPSC has Page 10 of 12 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Fri Aug 22 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 23 00:36:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14540/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/08/2025 undefined published the second advertisement vide Advertisement No.22/2016-17 for one post of Professor in chemical engineering in Government Engineering College. 9.2 Considering this aspect, it is required to refer the Government Resolution dated 24.12.2008 as well as the contention raised by the respondent that the G.R. dated 27.07.2018 of GAD department is self-explanatory. Clause 2 of that G.R. unequivocally provides that it would be taken within its sweep only those advertisement which will be published from or after the date of Resolution dated 27.07.2018. Thus, the said G.R. has no application in the instant case, however, the G.R. 24.12.2018, which is produced by learned advocate for the respondent during course of argument, clearly provides that the select list will be in existence for two years after the recommendation made by the GPSC. Therefore, considering the facts of the present case, such period is already over much prior to the year 2019 and in the year 2019, the petitioner was also communicated about the reasons for not considering his case for appointment by the respondent-Authority. 9.3 Therefore, I am of the opinion that looking to the facts of the present case and considering the fact that the present petition is also pending since the year 2019 at the stage of Page 11 of 12 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Fri Aug 22 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 23 00:36:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14540/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/08/2025 undefined admission and considering all the aspects more particularly, considering the fact that waiting list is already expired pursuant to the Advertisement of the year 2015-16 much prior filing of the petition in view of the publication of the subsequent advertisement and in view of the Government Resolution, therefore, it cannot be said that the respondent has committed any illegality or impropriety in the said process and it can also not be considered that there is any violation of Articles 14 of 16 of the Constitution of India by the respondent in the facts of the present case. CONCLUSION:
9.3 Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the present case, I found that no case is made out for consideration of the case of the present petitioner at such belated stage. Therefore, the present petition is found meritless and it required to be dismissed.
10. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J) DIWAKAR SHUKLA Page 12 of 12 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Fri Aug 22 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 23 00:36:45 IST 2025