Gujarat High Court Slams 'Classic' Favouritism, Scraps Appointment of Less-Meritorious Cook

In a scathing rebuke of arbitrary recruitment practices, the Gujarat High Court has quashed the appointment of a candidate placed fourth in the merit list for the post of Administrator-cum-Cook, ruling that it was the result of outright favouritism by a retired Mamlatdar. Justice Maulik J. Shelat directed authorities to verify the educational credentials of the higher-ranked petitioner before considering her for the position or moving to the next candidate in line.

A Contest Over Qualifications in Rural Dahod

The dispute arose from an advertisement issued for the post of Administrator-cum-Cook in Jhalod taluka of Dahod district. Petitioner Sangada Hansaben Malabhai, who claimed to have secured 68 percent marks in graduation, found herself placed at serial number 6 in the merit list, with her qualification merely noted as “pass.” Respondent No. 3, who stood at serial number 4, was ultimately appointed despite lower claimed marks of around 53.40 percent.

Documents later obtained under RTI revealed inconsistencies: the appointed candidate’s application showed only 48.94 percent, raising doubts whether she was even a graduate at the time of applying. Meanwhile, the petitioner produced a degree certificate from Dr. B. R. Ambedkar University, Agra, which drew fresh scrutiny over its precise nomenclature.

Petitioner's Challenge: Merit Ignored for Convenience

Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Japan V. Dave argued that the merit list itself was manipulated to benefit the favoured candidate. He highlighted absurd remarks in the official records — including speculation that an unmarried village girl might marry and relocate — as pretexts to bypass more qualified applicants. Dave stressed that all educational documents had been submitted with the original application and later retrieved officially under RTI with the department’s seal intact.

The State, represented by Assistant Government Pleader Siddharth Rami, maintained that the petitioner had failed to furnish her graduation certificate at the relevant time. Counsel for the appointed respondent, Prithviraj Jadeja, went further, questioning the authenticity of the petitioner’s degree and noting that the university had declined to disclose third-party information.

Court’s Unsparing Examination of Administrative Overreach

Justice Shelat found little difficulty in diagnosing the root problem. The record demonstrated that candidates ranked above respondent No. 3, who undisputedly possessed superior academic credentials, were passed over on flimsy and constitutionally untenable grounds. The court observed that such reasoning directly violated the guarantees of equality under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

The bench declined to let the matter rest on technical objections alone. While acknowledging the practical difficulty of examining a retired official, the court made clear that the appointment order dated 21 April 2018 could not survive judicial scrutiny.

> “At the outset, it must be observed that this is a classic example of outright favouritism shown by the then Mamlatdar of Taluka Jhalod, District Dahod (respondent No.2), whereby he appointed respondent No. 3 as Administrator-cum-Cook, despite her being at serial No. 4 in the merit list.”

The judgment further condemned the practice of discounting candidates on hypothetical future events such as marriage and relocation, terming such considerations “arbitrary, fanciful, frivolous” and constitutionally impermissible.

Degree Verification Becomes the Deciding Factor

Despite the petitioner’s strong showing on paper, the court stopped short of directing her immediate appointment. It noted conflicting claims about the exact name of the degree-awarding university and therefore required an objective verification exercise. If the certificate proved genuine, the petitioner — having topped the merit list with 68 percent marks — would be entitled to the post. Should it turn out to be fake, authorities were directed to offer the position to the candidate at serial number 2.

The entire exercise must be completed within one month. In addition, the State has been asked to put in place “a robust mechanism” to prevent recurrence of such malpractices in public recruitment.

What the Future Holds for Similar Recruitments

By setting aside the appointment order while keeping the door open for genuine merit, the Gujarat High Court has sent a clear message: administrative convenience or personal preference cannot override constitutional requirements of fairness and transparency in public employment. The ruling also underscores that candidates bear the burden of establishing the authenticity of their qualifications when doubts legitimately arise.

The petition stands partly allowed, with the rule made absolute to the extent indicated. No costs were awarded.