Back
2021 Supreme(Guj) 623
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
A.S. SUPEHIA, J.
BHAVESHKUMAR RATNABHAI PATEL - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT - Respondent
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12343 of 2021
Decided On : 02-09-2021
For The Appellant : ANURAG R RATHOR, SURESHKUMAR M CHAUDHARY
For The Respondent: MR ROHAN SHAH, AGP
Point of Law: It is true that ordinarily when an employee is given relief by the court, similarly situated persons would not be denied the relief on the plain ground that such person had not approached the court. However, this may not be a rule of universal truth more particularly in the cases which are marred by delay, latches and acquiescence and therefore, barred for relief.
Headnote:
Constitution of India,1950 – Appointment for Post of Lok Rakshak - Direction of appointing him on post of Lok Rakshak Unarmed Constable - Court and reliefs have been granted only to those recruitment process which have taken place after – He has submitted that views of Coordinate Benches are confirmed by Division Bench of Court - In support of his submissions he has placed reliance on order passed in Special Civil Application which is confirmed by Division Bench of Court vide order passed in Letters Patent Appeal Further reliance is placed on order in Civil Application in Letters Patent Appeal in Special Civil Application.
Finding of the Court :
Court in Letters Patent Appeal By order passed in Special Civil Application Division Bench of Court confirmed order passed by Single Judge by observing that judgments rendered in case of similarly situated candidates cannot be applied to case of such petitioners who have approached Court after delay of more than 8-9 years - Similar view was taken by Coordinate Bench vide order passed in Special Civil Application and same was confirmed by Division Bench of Court in Letters Patent Appeal vide order - Present case as it is noticed recruitment process is denial is in and writ petition has been filed seeking similar relief of other similarly situated employees in after passage of more than 10 years from recruitment and 07 years from impugned communication Court since petitioner has slept over his rights for all these years he is not entitled for equitable relief on ground of delay merely because other similarly situated persons have been granted relief as it appears that all Lok Rakshak, who have been granted relief by Court had approached within reasonable time.
Result: Writ Petition Disposed of
JUDGMENT :
1. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 14.03.2014 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Kachchh-Bhuj and also sought direction of appointing him on the post of Lok Rakshak Unarmed Constable.
2. It appears that the petitioner had applied for the post of Lok Rakshak pursuant to the advertisement issued in the year 2011 and after undergoing the recruitment process, he was placed in the provisional merit list at Sr. No.1545. Thereafter, his medical examination was conducted and ultimately, he was declared medically unfit vide communication dated 14.03.2014.
3. Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the issue is squarely covered by the various decisions of the Division Bench of this Court as well as the Coordinate Benches of this Court, whereby the Lok Rakshak, who are declared as medically unfit on the ground of color blindness have been directed to be reinstated in service. He has submitted that the case of the petitioner is also squarely covered by such decisions. He has placed reliance on the order dated 18.02.2019 passed in Special Civil Application No.483 of 2019. Thus, he has submitted that appropriate directions may be issued directing the respondent authority to appoint the petitioner on the post of Lok Rakshak.
4. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Rohan Shah has submitted that there are various decisions of the Division Bench of this Court as well as the Coordinate Benches of this Court on the same issue and in some of the judgements, the Coordinate Benches have taken a view that the petitioners, who have belatedly approached this Court, would not be entitled to the benefits of the judgements rendered by this Court and reliefs have been granted only to those recruitment process which have taken place after 2016. He has submitted that views of the Coordinate Benches are confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the order dated 27.11.2019 passed in Special Civil Application No.1813 of 2019, which is confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 04.02.2020 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.131 of 2020. Further reliance is placed on the order dated 06.08.2020 passed in Civil Application No.1643 of 2020 in Letters Patent Appeal No.397 of 2020 in Special Civil Application No.12147 of 2019.
5. I have heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the various judgements as pointed out by the learned advocates for the respective parties.
6. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the recruitment process was undertaken in the year 2011. The petitioner was informed on 14.03.2014 that he is not entitled for the appointment to the post of Lok Rakshak due to his medical unfitness. Though in the writ petition, the petitioner has stated that he is declared medically unfit on the ground of colour blindness, nothing is produced on record with regard to the same. The communication dated 14.03.2014 only refers to the denial of appointment to the post of Lok Rakshak because of his medical unfitness. Be that as it may, it is not in dispute that by various judgements, the Court has directed the respondent to appoint the Lok Rakshak, who have been declared as unfit because of the colour blindness, however, this Court has rejected the writ petitions, which are filed belatedly.
7. The order dated 18.02.2019 passed in Special Civil Application No.483 of 2019 (Annexure-D)refers to the various judgements including the judgement rendered by the Division Bench of this Court. I may refer to the judgement rendered in the case of Rajdeepsinh Takhatsinh Zala Vs. State of Gujarat being Letters Patent Appeal No.1136 of 2018 decided on 02.11.2018. A perusal of the aforesaid judgement would reveal that the petitioner/appellant therein had immediately challenged the inaction of his termination on the ground of medical certificate by filing Special Civ
