NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/611/2023 CAV ORDER DATED: 18/09/2023
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 611 of 2023
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15931 of 2018
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
================================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ? ================================================================ GITABEN NARSINHBHAI PATEL Versus MINISTRY OF CHILD AND WOMEN DEVELOPMENT ================================================================ Appearance:
MR CHINTAN N DESAI(9940) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 for the Respondent(s) No. 4 MR MANISH J PATEL(2131) for the Respondent(s) No. 3 MR VASANT R BAROT(5746) for the Respondent(s) No. 6 MS SHRUTI DHRUVE, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2 NOTICE UNSERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 8 ================================================================ CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI Date : 18/09/2023 CAV ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI) Heard learned advocate Mr. Chintan N. Desai for Page 1 of 10 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 18 20:47:17 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/611/2023 CAV ORDER DATED: 18/09/2023 undefined the appellant, learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Shruti Dhruve for respondent Nos.1 and 2, learned advocate Mr. Manish Patel for respondent Nos.3 and 4 and learned advocate Mr. Vasant R. Barot for respondent No.6.
1. This Letters Patent Appeal is arising out an order passed by learned Single Judge on 21.7.2022 in Special Civil Application No.15931 of 2018, whereby, the petition of the appellant came to be dismissed and it was held that the benefit of the Resolution dated 8.2.2006 cannot be given to the petitioner.
2. The short facts involved in the present Letters Patent Appeal are as under: 2.1. The petitioner applied for the post of Aanaganwadi Worker, and on 30.03.1995 was appointed as Aanaganwadi Worker. The Rules namely Page 2 of 10 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 18 20:47:17 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/611/2023 CAV ORDER DATED: 18/09/2023 undefined Mukhya Sevika, Class-III (Panchayat Service), Recruitment Rules, 2004 (for short, hereinafter referred to as, `the Rules') were to be considered for the appointment to the post of Mukhya Sevika and the appointment of Mukhya Sevika was either be "direct selection" or by "nomination from amongst Aanaganwadi Workers." The dispute involved in the present case pertains to the nomination from amongst Aanaganwadi Workers.
2.2. The Notification dated 19.03.2004, more particularly in clause 4(a), the eligibility criteria for the candidates to be appointed by nomination from amongst Aanaganwadi Workers is, the candidate should not be more than 45 years of age. Since the nomination of the petitioner was not considered by the respondents, the petitioner filed the petition for the reliefs, more particularly, seeking direction of quashing and setting aside the nomination of the Page 3 of 10 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 18 20:47:17 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/611/2023 CAV ORDER DATED: 18/09/2023 undefined private respondents and further sought the appointment of the petitioner for the post of Mukhya Sevika. It was further prayed to appoint the petitioner as per Seniority list and stay of the appointment order of other private respondents to the post of Mukhya Sevika.
3. Learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that other than the age criteria, the appellant's case meets with all the criteria determined for the nomination for the post of Mukhya Sevika and if timely process would have undertaken by the authority, the appellant would have been nominated to the post of Mukhya Sevika before the age of 45 years, which is the age criteria for selection.
3.1. It is further contended by the learned advocate for the appellant that the posts of Mukhya Page 4 of 10 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 18 20:47:17 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/611/2023 CAV ORDER DATED: 18/09/2023 undefined Sevika were lying vacant since long and the authority deliberately in order to adopt pick and chose policy, delayed the process of nominating the Aanaganwadi Worker for the post of Mukhya Sevika. 3.2. Learned advocate for the appellant has referred Rules, 2004 which is placed on record and more particularly clause 4(a) which reads as under:
"4 To be eligible for appointment by nomination from amongst the Aanaganwadi Workers to the post mentioned in rule 2 above, a candidate shall: -
(a) not be more than 45 years of age;
(b) xxx
(c) xxx"
3.3. Learned advocate for the appellant has also relied upon the Government Resolution dated 08.02.2006 which reflects that since long the recruitment has not been done and hence, the three Page 5 of 10 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 18 20:47:17 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/611/2023 CAV ORDER DATED: 18/09/2023 undefined years relaxation in the maximum age limit of 45 to be considered. In short, instead of the age limit of 45 years for the post of Mukhya Sevika, age limit of 48 years can be considered.
4. On the other hand, learned advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3 submitted that the decision of the learned Single Judge does not require any interference as the same is supported by the Government Resolutions and the Rules referred and relied upon by the petitioner i.e. the present appellant. The learned advocate for the respondents has submitted that as per the Government Resolution dated 21.05.2007, the process of nomination was undertaken three times i.e. in the years 2008, 2010 and 2018. The said Resolution also gives the relaxation of age bar from 45 years to 48 years but the employee can have benefits of such relaxation only for one time. And once that benefit has been Page 6 of 10 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 18 20:47:17 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/611/2023 CAV ORDER DATED: 18/09/2023 undefined availed, the petitioner cannot avail the same for subsequent nomination.
4.1. It is further submitted by the learned advocate for the respondents that the candidate was given age relaxation once and the same was considered in the year 2008. As per the said Resolution, one time age relaxation has been granted by the nomination for the post of Mukhya Sevika. It is further submitted by learned advocate for the respondents that once, one time age relaxation is given, no age relaxation can be granted for the subsequent nomination in the years 2010 and 2018 and hence, the appellant has no case on merits.
5. After considering the rival contentions and after taking into consideration the observations made in the order impugned, the entire controversy is revolving around the interpretation of the Page 7 of 10 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 18 20:47:17 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/611/2023 CAV ORDER DATED: 18/09/2023 undefined Government Resolution dated 08.02.2006. The said Resolution is very clear and unambiguous. In clear terms it stipulates that the benefit of age relaxation is extended only as one time measure. The benefit of such relaxation cannot be extended for the subsequent processes of nomination. Even the Resolution dated 08.02.2006 is silent on that aspect, hence, the petitioner cannot avail the benefit of age relaxation after having taken the benefit of such age relaxation clause.
5.1. In the background of the said Resolution, the respondents can consider the age relaxation criteria of the petitioner - appellant only one time. Therefore, the appellant is now not entitled to avail the benefit of the Government Resolution of availing the benefit of age relaxation.
6. Learned Single Judge while dismissing the Page 8 of 10 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 18 20:47:17 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/611/2023 CAV ORDER DATED: 18/09/2023 undefined petition has observed that the Government Resolution dated 21.05.2007, the nomination process for the district of Sabarkantha was undertaken on three occasions i.e. in the years 2008, 2010 and 2018 and the Government Resolution dated 08.02.2006 cannot be made applicable to the petitioner as the case of the petitioner cannot be termed as the nomination for the first time.
6.1. The learned Single Judge has taken into consideration the aforesaid aspect and has rightly held that the petitioner cannot be benefited by taking the shelter of Government Resolution dated 8.2.2006 since the nomination was not for the first time in the case of the petitioner.
7. In view of the above, the decision of the learned Single Judge does not require any interference. Looking to the facts of the case, this Page 9 of 10 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 18 20:47:17 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/611/2023 CAV ORDER DATED: 18/09/2023 undefined Letters Patent Appeal is merit-less and deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(N.V.ANJARIA, J) (D. M. DESAI,J) VATSAL Page 10 of 10 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 18 20:47:17 IST 2023