SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 6123

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
JATINKUMAR BHIKHABHAI KALATHIYAV/sSTATE OF GUJARAT
R/SCA/778/2020



##PAGE1##

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/778/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2026

0.5636062560404449

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 778 of 2020

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT

=============================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No

=============================================

JATINKUMAR BHIKHABHAI KALATHIYA

Versus

STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

=============================================

Appearance:

MR PA JADEJA(3726) WITH MS SHIVANI BAROT for Petitioner(s) No. 1

MR SIDDHARTH RAMI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2

KISHAN Y DAVE(8293) for the Respondent(s) No. 3

MR RASESH H PARIKH(3862) for the Respondent(s) No. 3

MR.HEMANG H PARIKH(2628) for the Respondent(s) No. 3

MR MAULIK NANAVATI FOR NANAVATI &CO.(7105) for Respondent No. 2

=============================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT

Date : 03/02/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr.Siddharth Rami, learned

AGP waives service of Rule for the respondent State,

Mr.Maulik Nanavati, learned advocate waives service of Rule

for respondent No.2 and Mr.Hemang Parikh, learned advocate

waives service of Rule for respondent No.3.

2. The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:

“(A) Quash and set aside the resolution dated 27-9-2018 passed by

the respondent no. 2 and thereby quash the appointment order

dated 5.10.2018 issued to the respondent no. 3 herein.

Page 1 of 11

Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Wed Feb 04 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 01 13:12:38 IST 2026

##PAGE2##

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/778/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2026

0.5636062560404449

(B) Direct the respondent no. 2 to issue fresh order of appointment

to the post of Executive Engineer (Civil) Class – I, only as per merit,

as declared by the team of experts as annexed herein as Annexure-

D and thereby consider the case of the petitioner for appointment

to the said post as he is at Sr. No. 1 in the said list declared by the

expert committee.

(C) Pending final hearing and outcome of the present writ petition,

kindly direct the respondent no. 2, not to regularize the services

conditions of the respondent no. 3 till the present petition is finally

decided.”

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE :

3. It is not in dispute between the parties that the

petitioner had applied for the post of Executive Engineer

(Civil) pursuant to the advertisement issued by Respondent

No.2 - Corporation. The petitioner had secured the highest

marks among all other candidates. The Selection Committee

appointed by the respondent-Corporation, after scrutinizing

the candidatures of all candidates, prepared a merit list of

candidates in seriatim wherein the petitioner stood at serial

No.1, whereas Respondent No.3 stood at serial No.3. The

respondent Corporation, having the power to appoint the

candidate upon receipt of the said list, has appointed

respondent No.3 herein, instead of the petitioner. Being

aggrieved by the said decision, initially, the petitioner had

approached the respondent State by way of his representation

dated 03/05/2019 and pending its adjudication, approached

this Court by way of this petition with the aforesaid prayers.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONER :

4. Mr.Jadeja, learned advocate for the petitioner, has made

the following submissions:

Page 2 of 11

Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Wed Feb 04 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 01 13:12:38 IST 2026

##PAGE3##

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/778/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2026

0.5636062560404449

4.1 The petitioner, having undisputedly secured the highest

marks and being placed at serial No.1 in the list prepared by

the Selection Committee of the respondent Corporation, could

not have been denied the appointment to the post of Executive

Engineer (Civil) (Class-I).

4.2 The impugned action of respondent No.2 Corporation is

not only arbitrary but also violative of Article 14 of the

Constitution of India, inasmuch as there is no reason, much

less a cogent one, available to the Corporation to ap

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top