Neha Rameshbhai Rathod vs Vijaykumar Ramsangbhai Chaudhari

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2025 Supreme(Guj) 1280

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
A.S. SUPEHIA, R. T. VACHHANI, JJ.
Neha Rameshbhai Rathod - Appellant
Versus
Vijaykumar Ramsangbhai Chaudhari & Ors. - Respondents
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 439 of 2025 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12862 of 2024 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025 In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 439 of 2025 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12862 of 2024 With R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 441 of 2025 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12862 of 2024 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025 In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 441 of 2025 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12862 of 2024 With R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 101 of 2025 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9754 of 2024
Decided on : 22-07-2025

Important Points

Judgments in employment cases are subject to concepts of laches and acquiescence, whereby delayed claims can be denied relief, emphasizing the need for timely challenges to selection processes.

Subject

Employment Law - Recruitment and Appointment

Act Referred

UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION ACT: S.3
Gram Sevak Class-III, namely the Gujarat Superior Panchayat Services Class III Rules: R.3
GUJARAT PANCHAYAT ACT: S.227, S.274

Headnote

(A) Letters Patent Act, 1865 - Clause 15 - Recruitment process - The court considered the validity of appointments of Gram Sevaks amid qualifications disputes, as individuals with B.Sc. degrees were included while diploma holders were excluded, leading to challenges based on a previous ruling. It was determined that the judgment in question did not apply in rem but rather in personam, emphasizing that delays in claims could defeat equity. (Paras 22.1, 40, 46)

Facts of the case:
The appellants, who were Degree holders, contested their removal from the select list for Gram Sevaks, opposing the Diploma holders' claim to challenge their selection based on previous judgments. The appointments dated back to the recruitment process initiated in 2016. (Paras 5, 12)

Findings of Court:
The appointments of the appellants were upheld, concluding that the learned Single Judge erred by relying on the Division Bench decision applicable to other districts, given its local scope. (Paras 40, 46)

Issues: The main issues involved whether the previous ruling was authoritative across all districts and the implications of delay in raising claims by similarly situated individuals. (Paras 34, 42)

Ratio Decidendi: The law stipulates the need for prompt action by aggrieved individuals and recognizes that delays may bar claims — they must not be treated differently for being late, as their laches and acquiescence can justify dismissal. (Paras 22.2, 34)

Result: Appeals allowed, overturning the previous order and reinstating the appointments. (Paras 46, 49)

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : MR NK MAJMUDAR, MR. SHIVAM N MAJMUDAR
For the Respondent:MS SHRUTI DHRUVE, MR YATIN OZA, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR DHRUV H CHAUDHARY, MR KAMLESH S KOTAI, MR PREMAL R JOSHI

Table of Content
1. letters patent appeals filed against a single judge’s order. (Para 2 , 3)
2. recruitment qualifications and selection lists for gram sevak positions. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
3. supreme court's dismissal of appeals related to recruitment processes. (Para 8 , 10)
4. contentions of appellants regarding selection processes and delays. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
5. private respondents’ claims against the inclusion of appellants. (Para 18 , 19)
6. selection process and errors concerning qualifications. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
7. judgment parallels and their implications. (Para 26 , 27 , 28)
8. delay in challenging the recruitment process affects claims. (Para 30 , 31)
9. principles surrounding delay, laches, and their effects on claims. (Para 32 , 33 , 34)
10. distinction between judgments in rem and in personam. (Para 35 , 36 , 37)
11. absence of fraud in the selection process. (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42)
12. upholding of appointments despite eligibility concerns. (Para 44 , 45)
13. (Para 46)
14. rejection of frivolous appeals and associated legal processes. (Para 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 53)

JUDGMENT :

A.S. SUPEHIA, J.

ORDER ON LPA Nos.439 of 2025 and 441 of 2025 :

1. ADMIT. Learned advocates appear and waive service of notice of admission on behalf of the respective respondents.

2. The captioned appeals being Letters Patent Appeals Nos.439 and 441 of 2025 filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, 1865, are directed against the judgment and order dated 27.02.2025, passed in the captioned writ petition filed by the private respondents. The learned Single Judge has allowed the petitions by directing the respondent–State authorities to delete the names of the present appellants from the select list. Whereas the Letters Patent Appeal No.101 of 2025 is filed against the judgment and order dated 02.07.2024 passed in Special Civil Application No.9754 of 2024 filed by the appellants – original petitioners (Kishankumar Babubhai Chamar Changecha and others).

3. The entire case of the respective parties hinges on the judgment and order of the Division Bench dated 10.11.2023 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.705 of 2023 in Special Civil Application No. 15597 of 2017.

BRIEF FACTS :

4. The issue raised in the present appeals arise between two sets of candidates; one who possess the qualification as prescribed in Clause No.3.1 of the advertisement i.e. either two years or three years diploma in Agriculture, or a Bachelor in Rural Studies obtained from any university established or incorporated under a Central or State Act in India or any other educational institutions recognized as such or declared as deemed university under Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956; and the second set i.e. the present appellants, who possess the educational qualification of B.Sc.(Agriculture).

5. The respondent - District Panchayat Service Selection Committee, Mehsana issued an advertisement on 23.11.2016, inviting applications for the post of Gram Sevak (Class-III) in the said district. The advertisement prescribed the requisite qualification for the candidates in Clause 3.1 of the advertisement, as “either two years or three years diploma in Agriculture, or a Bachelor in Rural Studies obtained from any university established or incorporated under a Central or State Act in India or any other educational institutions recognized as such or declared as deemed university under Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956”. The present appellants along with the private respondents applied online for post of Gram Sevak (Class-III). They appeared in the written test, and their names appeared in the provisional list published by the respondent-authorities on 10.03.2017. The said list included the names of the present appellants as well as the private respondents, and all other ineligible candidates possessing different qualifications. It appears that subsequently, a final select list was prepared on 03.04.2017, which only included the name