Back
2024 Supreme(Guj) 1671
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI, J.
Rameshbhai Dahyabhai Patel - Petitioner
Versus
State of Gujarat & Ors. - Respondents
R/Special Civil Application No. 10388 of 2019
Decided On : 12-06-2024
For the Petitioner: Mr. Gautam Joshi, Senior Counsel with Mr. Vyom H. Shah.
For the Respondent: Ms. Suman Motla, AGP, Mr. Shrineel M. Shah.
IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that administrative errors in appointment classifications can be rectified when qualifications clearly support a higher category.
Headnote:
Employment - Lecturer Appointment - Article 226 - The court interpreted the recruitment rules and the qualifications required for the post of Lecturer, determining that the petitioner was entitled to be placed in Category-I based on his qualifications, thus rectifying the earlier appointment error.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner applied for a Lecturer position in Animal Husbandry and was appointed in Category-II despite holding a Master's degree that qualified him for Category-I. He sought rectification of this error through multiple representations.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was indeed qualified for Category-I and that the error in his appointment was acknowledged by the relevant authorities. The court directed the respondents to rectify the mistake and grant the petitioner the appropriate benefits.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to be placed in Category-I based on his qualifications and whether the error in his appointment could be rectified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner, possessing the requisite qualifications, should be considered for Category-I, emphasizing the need for administrative bodies to correct appointment errors when they are identified.
Result: The petition was allowed, directing the respondents to rectify the appointment error and grant the petitioner the benefits of Category-I.
ORDER :
Vaibhavi D. Nanavati, J.
1. Heard Mr. Gautam Joshi, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Vyom H. Shah, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Shrineel M. Shah, learned advocate appearing for the respondent no.2 and Ms. Suman Motla, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 3 – State.
2.1. Briefly stated, that the petitioner herein applied for the post of Lecturer in the subject of Animal Husbandry, pursuant to the advertisement issued in the newspaper by the respondent authorities dated 05.07.1995.
2.2. Pursuant to the due procedure of selection, the petitioner came to be appointed on the post of Lecturer, initially on probation for a period of one year, through an order dated 06.11.1995 and subsequently, came to be confirmed on the said post. The petitioner was subsequently served with an approving letter from the respondent State Government, duly produced at Annexure-D, which is dated 05.12.1995.
2.3. The advertisement was for both Categories, i.e. Category-I as well as for Category-II and the rules governing the said post of Lecturer, at the relevant point of time has made the position clear that the candidates who are having master’s degree shall be entitled to the post of Lecturer in Category-I and shall be entitled to the pay scale prescribed against the same. The petitioner herein is governed to the rules of the recruitment for the post of Lecturer, at the relevant point of time published in the year 1987, duly produced at Annexure-F (original resolution dated 06.06.1986 duly produced at Annexure-M).
2.4. The petitioner herein is possessing the degree of Master of Rural Studies in the year 1993.
2.5. In light of the aforesaid, it is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner herein is entitled for the pay scale under Category-I. It is submitted that the said error which was committed at the time of appointing the petitioner on 06.11.1995, does not mentioning the category, that under which category, the petitioner was appointed. The petitioner herein since 05.12.1995 being appointed in Category-II, approached the respondent no.2 with a representation dated 06.10.1997, duly produced at Annexure-E. The 2nd representation dated 17.03.1998 duly produced at Annexure-F. The petitioner got a clarification from the South Gujarat University that there was no such thing as main subject at the relevant point of time, when the petitioner was conferred for his master degree. The said clarification was issued by the South Gujarat University dated 06.10.1998 duly produced at Annexure-G and further clarification was also produced on record, which was also issued by the said University, which was dated 07.02.2014, reiterating the same. The respondent no.2 made representation to the respondent no.3 on 03.09.2003 pointing out to the respondent no.3 that it was an error, because of which, though the petitioner is possessing the degree of master of Rural Studies, and in view thereof, he is entitled to be considered in Category-I and the said anomaly be rectified.
2.6. In the meantime, in the year 2008, the respondent – State vide letter dated 21.10.2008 directed the Principal of the respondent College to compute the arrears to be paid to the petitioner, if shifted from the Category-II to Category-I. The said communication is duly produced at Annexure-K. The respondent no.2 replied to the respondent – State by communication dated 08.11.2008 / 13.11.2008, which is duly produced at Page-28 and at Pages-29 and 30, there was detail of the amount, that would be payable, if the petitioner shifted from Category-II to Category-I. However, the said mistake has not been rectified by the concerned authorities.
2.7. In view thereof, the petitioner herein was constrained to approach this Court invoking Article-226 of the Constitution of India and has prayed for the following reliefs :
“(A) This Honourable Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or in the nature of mandamus or any other writ that the H
