SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Guj) 151

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
A.C. RAO, J.
Chirag Kishorbhai Joshi – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
R/Special Civil Application No. 10549 of 2020 [On review of order dated 23/12/2020 in R/SCA/10549/2020]
Decided on : 19-02-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : MR KB PUJARA, MR PARESHKUMAR B TRIVEDI
For the Respondent: MR ROHAN SHAH, MR SHIVANG J SHUKLA

Point of Law: If a selected candidate joins and resigns within a period of currency of waiting list, a wait listed candidate would have a right to claim appointment and this very proposition also appears to have been considered by the Division Bench of this Court while dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal of GPSC, as stated earlier.

Headnote:

Service Law - Gujarat Public Service Commission - Notice - Wait list – Appointment of Assistant Charity Commissioner – Seeking directions to respondents to give appointment to petitioner with all consequential benefits as if he was given appointment immediately after vacancy occurred on 372019; to direct GPSC to forthwith recommend and send the petitioner's name to Legal Department for his appointment as Joint Charity Commissioner, Class-I by operating waitinglist - Whether stand of GPSC, which is reflecting in impugned communication on page 50, is just and proper and whether case of petitioner falls within parameters of policy of operating wait list and for that purpose

Finding of the court: Undisputedly petitioner is also at serial No.1 in wait list and petitioner was scanned through, selected and placed in wait list and this wait list is in operation for a period of two years and as such, from all counts of eligibility and in view of the policy, coupled with the proposition which has been laid down by this Court, the petitioner can be said to be an eligible candidate and as such there was no alternate left for respondent No.4 but to give appointment to the petitioner. Now, in this context, what has been decided by GPSC is also quite shocking. Reason which has been given in very first paragraph to deny recommendation is perse contrary to their own policy of circular which is undisputedly applicable to case of petitioner as well and as such, this Court is of opinion that stand of respondent No.4 is absolutely unreasonable, arbitrary, capricious and cannot be said to be in any form sustainable in eye of law. Court opinion that here is a case in which, Dr. Niravkumar Gamanlal Patel after resuming the duty has tendered resignation, whose resignation is accepted specifically with effect from 18.9.2019 and operation of the wait list period is two years, which fact is not in dispute. So, in no uncertain terms, this eventuality has occurred within a year in favour of the petitioner to make a request for appointment.

Result: Petition allowed

ORDER :

In view of the order dated 29.1.2021 passed in Misc. Civil Application No.1 of 2021 in Special Civil Application No.10549 of 2020, the writ petition is taken-up for hearing today so as to review the said order.

2. Heard learned advocate for the petitioner, learned AGP for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 - State authorities and learned advocate Mr. Shukla for the respondent No.3.

3. From the submissions by learned advocate for the petitioner, it appears that there is factual error in the order dated 23.12.2020 passed in Special Civil Application No.10549 of 2020, since in the said order, inadvertently and through over sight, facts of Special Civil Application No.8439 of 2020 are mentioned. Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that except factual statements in the said order, rest of the order does not require any change.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that though a Letters Patent Appeal is preferred against the order dated 23.12.2020 passed in Special Civil Application No.10549 of 2020, since the incorrect factual statements in the said order are required to be corrected, they have no objection if the prayer as requested for is granted.

5. In view of above submissions by both sides, the factual statements in the said order, more particularly the paragraph Nos.3 to 3.6 mentioned in the order dated 23.12.2020 in Special Civil Application No.10549 of 2020 are ordered to be recalled and instead of them, following paragraphs shall be added/inserted:-

    “3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was born on 8-6-1976. He belongs to Open Category. He has passed B.A, LL.B. Examinations. He is presently serving as Assistant Charity Commissioner at Rajkot.

3.1 That the Gujarat Public Service commission (GPSC) issued undated Advertisement No. 49/2017-18 for 1 (one) post of Joint Charity Commissioner, Class-I in the Charity Organization, Gujarat State under the Legal Department. Being eligible and qualified the petitioner applied for the same. In the result declared by GPSC on 14-6-2018, one Shri Dharmendrasinh Gemalsinh Rana was placed in the Selection List and the present petitioner was placed at Sr. No.1 in the Waiting-List.

3.2 That the said Mr. Dharmendrasinh Gemalsinh Rana was given appointment as Joint Charity Commissioner, Class-I by Appointment Order dated 30-8-2018 and he joined duties on 1-9-2018. However, thereafter he was selected and appointed to the cadre of District Judge by the High Court of Gujarat by Notification dated 27-6-2019 and therefore, he submitted resignation from the post of Joint Charity Commissioner, Class-I and he was relieved from the said post on 3-7-2019 after office hours by the Legal Department's Notification dated 3-7-2019.

3.3 Thus, the said candidate having resigned from the post of Joint Charity Commissioner, Class-I within one year of the date of joining, the vacancy occurred on which the present petitioner entitled to be appointed as the waitlisted candidate No.1.

3.4 That the petitioner therefore, made representation dated 6-7-2019 to the respondent No.1 for giving him appointment. According to the petitioner's information, the State Government immediately requested the GPSC to send the name from the waiting-list so as to fill up the said vacancy. However, according to the petitioner's information, in or about January-2020 the GPSC declined to recommend the petitioner's name from the waiting-list. According to the petitioner's information the State Government has again requested the GPSC to send the name from the waiting-list so as to fill up the said vacancy, but the GPSC is adamant and it is not recommending the petitioner's name for appointment, without any legal justification.”

6. Rest of the paragraphs of the order dated 23.12.2020 passed in Special Civil Application No.10549 of 2020 shall remain as it is.

Fresh copy of the order/writ shall be issued accordingly.

Direct service is permitted.

ORDER

Decided on : 23/12/2020

1. Present petition is a Class-Ic examp

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

      Please visit our Training & Support
      Center or Contact Us for assistance

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top