Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 12244
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Nikhil S. Kariel, J
Parsaniya Trushaben Narendrakumar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12014 of 2025|R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13377 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: K.B. Pujara, Swapneshwar Goutam, Pareshkumar B. Trivedi
For the Respondents: Aditya Pathak
An employer cannot change the rules of a recruitment process, such as the policy for inter-changeability of vacancies for reserved category candidates, once the advertisement has been issued. Policies in force at the time of the notification govern the selection process.
Headnote:(A) Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - Section 34 - Recruitment policy for physically handicapped candidates - Adoption of interchangeability of categories for filling unfilled vacancies - Whether executive instructions (Government Resolution) in force on the date of recruitment prevail over subsequent amendments - Held, authorities cannot change the rules of the game after the advertisement is initiated; doctrine of legitimate expectation and equitable relief applied to prevent failure of public interest. (Paras 6.1, 11.2, 11.3)
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Article 226 of the Constitution - Power of High Court to mould relief based on fact situation - Courts of equity are empowered to pass orders that serve public interest even if it deviates from strict statutory formulation when the rigid application would be an exercise in futility. (Paras 9, 13.3)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners, suffering from Locomotor Disability (Category C), applied for the post of Vidhyasahayaks under an advertisement dated 01.11.2024, which reserved 4% of vacancies for disabled persons. While many vacancies in other disabled categories (A, B, D, & E) remained unfilled, the State declined to follow the interchangeability policy established by a Government Resolution dated 17.09.2021, and instead relied on a subsequent resolution dated 20.11.2024, which restricted interchangeability to be used only in subsequent recruitments.
Findings of Court:
The Court held that the State must follow the rules in force at the time of the advertisement. Since the 2021 resolution was valid when the advertisement was issued, the State cannot benefit from its own wrong by applying a later resolution post-advertisement. The Court found that forcing a second recruitment process to satisfy the new resolution would be an exercise in futility, as there were insufficient candidates in other categories.
Issues: 1) Whether the State erred in not applying the interchangeability policy prescribed by the 17.09.2021 resolution for the recruitment process of 01.11.2024. 2) Whether a subsequent change in policy can be applied to ongoing recruitment processes initiated under a prior policy.
Ratio Decidendi: Substantive changes in recruitment methodology cannot be imposed retroactively after an advertisement has been issued. Where the legal formulation would result in a futile exercise and lead to an inequitable outcome that defeats the object of the legislation, the Court may exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 to mould the relief according to the reality of the facts.
Result: Petitions allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners challenge the state's failure to apply horizontal reservation interchangeability for persons with disabilities. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments centers on the applicability of the 2021 resolution vs the 2024 resolution during an active recruitment. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. rules of the game cannot be changed once the recruitment process has commenced. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. equitable relief granted to prevent futile recruitment processes and ensure justice for disabled candidates. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned advocate Mr.K.B.Pujara and learned advocate Mr.Swapneshwar Goutam appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Aditya Pathak appearing on behalf of the respondent – State.
2. With the consent of parties, the petitions are taken up for final disposal.
3. Since both the petitions are having identical prayers, Special Civil Application No.12014/2025 is taken as a lead matter.
3.1. Issue Rule returnable forthwith. Learned AGP Mr.Pathak waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent – State.
3.2. Prayers, as sought for, in Special Civil Application No.12014/2025 are reproduced hereinbelow:-
(a) to admit this petition and to allow the same by issuing Notice for Final Disposal on returnable date as the petitioners are Physically Handicapped candidates suffering from Locomotor Disability and in dire need of appointment as Vidhya-sahayak;
(b) to direct the respondents to forthwith fill up all the vacancies of Vidhya-sahayaks notified for Physically Handicapped candidates of Categories (A), (B) and (D & E) which have remained unfilled due to non-availability of candidates pursuant to the Advertisement dtd. 1-11-2024 at Annexure-A (Advertisement year : 2024) by giving appointments to the petitioners who are belonging to Category (C) – Locomotor Disability by way of Inter-Change of Categories;
(c) to direct the respondents to forthwith fill up all the vacancies of Vidhya-sahayaks notified for Physically Handicapped candidates of Categories (A), (B) and (D & E) which have remained unfilled due to non-availability of candidates pursuant to the Special Recruitment Drive of Vidhya-sahayaks for Physically Handicapped Candidates by way of Advertisement dtd. 27-3-2025 at Anexure-C (Advertisement Year : 2025) by giving appointments to the petitioners who are belonging to Category (C) - Locomotor Disability by way of Inter-Change of Categories;
(d) to quash and set aside the impugned G.R. dtd. 20-11-2024 in so far as and to the extent that it does not provide for Inter-Change of categories for filling up the vacancies notified for a particular category of disability remaining unfilled due to non-availability of candidates in respect of first occasion of recruitment;
(e) pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition, be pleased to direct the respondents to forthwith give appointments as Vidhya-sahayaks to the petitioners who are Physically Handicapped candidates of Category (C) – Locomotor Disability on any of the vacancies reserved for Physically Handicapped candidates which have remained unfilled due to non-availability of candidates of a particular Category of Disability pursuant to Advertisement dtd. 1-11-2024 at Annexure-A or the Advertisement dtd. 27-3-2025 at Annexure-C, subject to further orders of this Hon’ble Court;
(f) to grant any other appropriate and just relief/s.”
3.3. At the outset, learned advocate Mr.Pujara does not press prayer (d) above insofar as quashing of Government Resolution dated 20.11.2024 and whereas, it is submitted by learned advocate Mr.Swapneshwar Goutam that the prayer has not been sought for in his petition.
4. The brief facts leading to filing of this petition being that the petitioners are persons with disability, suffering from the disability as per category (C) as per Section 34 of the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 .
4.1. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondents had iss
