Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(d) to direct the GPSC to forthwith recommend and send the petitioner's name to the Legal Department for his appointment as Joint Charity Commissioner, Class­I by operating the waiting­list;

(e) pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition, be pleased to direct the GPSC to forthwith recommend and send the petitioner's name to the Legal Department for his appointment as Joint Charity Commissioner, Class­I by operating the waiting­list,

(f) pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition, be pleased to direct the respondent no.1 to forthwith give appointment to the petitioner as Joint Charity Commissioner, Class­I pursuant to GPSC's Advertisement No.49/2017­18, subject to further orders of the Hon'ble Court;

4.3. Learned advocate Mr. Pujara has further contended that the stand which has been tried to be taken by the respondent GPSC to discriminate the petitioner and by deviating from applicable policy, this very stand was examined on number of occasions by this Court and the said stand is negatived by the Court and the petitions came to be allowed. To contend and substantiate the same, an attention is drawn to the decision dated 27.12.2011 passed in Special Civil Application No.4238 of 2011 and has submitted that a direction was given by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in almost similar issue to consider the case for appointment. Another decision which has been pointed out is the decision dated 27.11.2018 passed in Special Civil Application No.15284 of 2018 wherein exactly similar situation arose and the Court has considered. Mr.Pujara has further pointed out that this order passed by learned Single Judge is confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in its decision dated 18.3.2019 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.1556 of 2018 and by referring to yet another decision taken in December 2018 in Special Civil Application No.14454 of 2018, Mr. Pujara has submitted that this issue is exactly similar which arose in the present proceedings and as such, the reliefs prayed for deserve to be granted. 4.4. Learned advocate Mr. Pujara has submitted that this issue of operating a wait list has been churned time and again by this Court, still however, the respondent GPSC is reiterating the very same stand which is not only contemptuous but highly unfair and against the principle of legitimate expectation of a candidate and as such the reliefs prayed for deserve to be granted, more particularly heavy cost to be imposed upon the respondent GPSC which is taking this kind of stand. As a result of this, the exemplary cost is requested to be imposed upon the respondent GPSC.

5. As against the aforesaid submissions, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Bhargav Pandya appearing on behalf of the respondent State has submitted that on the contrary, the State Government has after visualizing the position has requested the GPSC to send proposal for recommendation so as to see that the petitioner can be given appointment. Mr. Pandya has fairly pointed out to this Court that even at the stage of representation, when the petitioner approached this Court, after taking telephonic instruction from the Deputy Director and instruction was recorded in the said order that appointment will be offered to the petitioner if found eligible on all counts and as such, the Court directed the respondent State to comply with the above statement which is reflecting in the order dated 15.6.2020. Mr. Pandya has further submitted that immediately after the said order dated 15.6.2020, the State Government has already requested the GPSC but then on 6.7.2000, the GPSC did not recommend the petitioner's case. Hence, the said communication of the GPSC was in turn informed to the petitioner, which has given rise to the present petition. According to Mr. Pandya, since the main concern is that of recommendation of the GPSC, the State has nothing much to offer except to rely upon the recommendation and the decision of the GPSC. However, Mr. Pandya has candidly submitted that there are few decisions relevant to the issue which are attached to the petition and as such, has left the matter to the discretion of the Court.

8. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the parties and having gone through the entire material on record and the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the respective sides, it appears that the issue arose is in a very narrow compass as to whether the stand of the GPSC, which is reflecting in the impugned communication on page 50, is just and proper and whether the case of the petitioner falls within the parameters of the policy of operating the wait list and for that purpose, following circumstances are not possible to be unnoticed by this Court while coming to a particular conclusion. (1) The respondent No.4 has essentially not recommended on the ground that the case of the petitioner does not fall within the parameters of the circular dated 24.12.2008 since the recommended candidate had resumed the duty on the post and then went away by giving resignation. According to the rules (without referring anything), has conveyed that not possible to recommend the name of the petitioner. (2) Now, this stand of GPSC, if to be closely examined from the resolution dated 24.12.2008, which is attached to the petition compilation on page 53­A, a separate subject is provided as to how the wait list is to be operated. Clause (1) of the resolution is suggesting clearly that whenever any candidate after resuming the post pursuant to the appointment, if during probation is resigning, said vacant post to be filled in from the waiting list and the person who is in the waiting list can claim the same. Now, this very resolution was the subject matter of controversy before this Court time and again, in which an attempt is made by GPSC that this resolution is essentially pertaining to Medical or Educational Department and therefore, cannot be utilized for other services. The Coordinate Bench while confronting with this situation has examined at length this very stand and has come to the conclusion that the said stand is without any logic and by negating the stand of GPSC, direction is given in the said case to operate the wait list and consider the case of relevant petitioner for the post of Account Officer Class­II. (3) Again this stand in another case has also cropped up before the Court for examination, in which also, the aforesaid resolution is negatived by the Bench and the petition came to be allowed. While approving the said proposal has also clearly confirmed the order passed by learned Single Judge and the Letters Patent Appeal of the GPSC came to be dismissed. In para 5.3, it has been observed that if selected candidate joins and resigns within a period of currency of wait list, a wait listed candidate would have a right to claim appointment and applying the this settled principle, keeping in view the very same circular dated 24.12.2008, after affirming the order of learned Single Judge, the Division Bench dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal of GPSC, which is clearly reflecting from page 90 - 91 of the petition compilation.