Back
2024 Supreme(Guj) 1719
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Vaibhavi D. Nanavati, J.
Patel Arjunbhai Songhabhai-ST- Petitioner
Versus
State Of Gujarat & Ors. – Respondents
R/Special Civil Application No. 5202 of 2007 With Civil Application (For Fixing Date of Hearing) No. 1 of 2023 In R/Special Civil Application No. 5202 of 2007 With R/Special Civil Application No. 5526 of 2007 With Civil Application (For Fixing Date of Hearing) No. 1 of 2023 In R/Special Civil Application No. 5526 of 2007
Decided On : 10-07-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr K B Pujara
For the Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Vyas, AGP, Mr H S Munshaw
IMPORTANT POINT
Backlog vacancies for reserved categories must be prioritized in recruitment, but candidates must also meet merit criteria for appointment.
Headnote:
Vacancies - Recruitment - Special Civil Application No. 14991 of 2004 - The court emphasized the necessity to fill backlog vacancies of reserved categories before new appointments, interpreting the legal obligation to prioritize such vacancies in recruitment processes.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, belonging to reserved categories, applied for teaching positions but alleged that backlog vacancies for their categories were not filled as mandated by a previous court order, leading to their petition for compliance.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondents had complied with the previous order to fill backlog vacancies and that the petitioners did not meet the merit criteria for appointment, thus their grievances were addressed.
Issues: Whether the respondents failed to fill backlog vacancies for reserved categories as per the court's previous order and whether the petitioners were entitled to appointments despite not meeting the merit criteria.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that backlog vacancies must be filled first as per legal precedent, but also that candidates must meet merit requirements for appointment.
Result: The petition was disposed of as the grievances were found to be addressed and the petitioners did not qualify for appointments.
JUDGMENT :
Vaibhavi D. Nanavati, J.
1. Heard Mr. K.B. Pujara, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners and Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned advocate appearing for the respondent no.3 and Ms. Nidhi Vyas, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent No. 1- State.
2. As the grievance raised by the petitioners in both the petitions are selfsame, the petitions are heard analogously and common order is passed in both the petitions, with the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.
3. The facts as stated in the Petition being Special Civil Application No. 5526 of 2007 is taken as a lead matter and the facts stated in the said Petition, briefly reads thus:
3.1. The petitioners belong to reserved categories of Scheduled Tribes (ST) and are qualified to be appointed as Vidya Sahayaks / Primary Teachers. The recruitment process is based on 100% objective criteria, viz. marks obtained at the qualifying examinations. The respondent no.2 – Director of Primary Education granted approval for filling 1525 vacancies of Vidhya Sahayaks in Vadodara District, by order dated 25.06.2004, on the basis of the vacancies of Primary Teachers in Vadodara as on 01.06.2003. Pursuant thereto, the respondent no.3 issued an advertisement dated 17.07.2004 inviting applications for 1320 vacancies of Vidhya Sahayaks and out of the said vacancies, 1208 vacancies were earmarked for PTC/ trained graduate candidates and 66 vacancies were earmarked for C.P.Ed. Candidates and 46 vacancies were earmarked for ATD candidates. The advertisement specifically stated that reserved categories candidates shall be recruited as per the reservations provided for SC / ST/ SEBC and physically handicapped candidates in every district and for Vadodara District, the reservations were provided, i.e. for SC-6%, ST-25%, SEBC-27% and Physically Handicapped – 4%. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the petitioners herein applied as PTC/ Trained Graduates.
3.2. The respondent no.3 arranged interviews from 21.11.2004 to 25.11.2004. Though, there were hundreds of backlog vacancies of ST / SEBC / Physically Handicapped categories, which were carried forward since last 3 years, due to non-availability of sufficient number of candidates of reserved categories, the respondent no.3 disregarded the same and decided not to fill up such backlog vacancies and though having applied, pursuant to the advertisement dated 17.07.2004, no interview call letters were issued. That several candidates belonging to the reserved categories and one Bariya Sanatkumar Jayantibhai preferred a petition being Special Civil Application No. 14991 of 2004 and prayed that the respondents be directed to fill-up the backlog vacancies of reserved categories first and to issue interview call letters to the candidates of reserved categories, before filling up the other vacancies.
3.3. Upon issuance of the notice in the said petition, the respondents appeared and admitted that the applications received from the candidates of the respective categories were far, more than the said backlog vacancies available under the respondents. The respondent no.2 – Director admitted that as per the catena of decision of this Court as well as the Hon’ble Apex Court, while making recruitment on any posts, backlog vacancies are required to be filled in first, before making any appointments. The Director also submitted and undertook to adjust the backlog vacancies from the selected list and waiting list prepared pursuant to the advertisement dated 17.07.2004, so as to give the benefit of backlog vacancies to the candidates of ST / SEBC / Physically Handicapped categories. The said petition came to be disposed of by order dated 23.12.2004 (Annexure-F), whereby, the respondents were directed to abide by their statements made in the affidavits in reply and to fill up the backlog vacancies of the aforesaid categories and they were directed to make further recruitment as per the advertisement only after completi
