Gujarat High Court
Naresh Khimjibhai Parmar vs Managing Director Gujarat Energy ... on 27 January, 2025
Author: A.S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia, Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/163/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 163 of 2025
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16976 of 2024
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA Sd/-
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI Sd/-
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
================================================================
NARESH KHIMJIBHAI PARMAR
Versus
MANAGING DIRECTOR GUJARAT ENERGY TRANSMISSION CO. LTD. &
ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR VATSAL D RUPAREL(14194) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS SHRUTI DHRUVE, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
MR MITESH L RANGRAS(3324) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 27/01/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1. ADMIT. Learned advocate Mr. Mitesh L. Rangras waives service of notice of admission on behalf of the respondent No.1 and learned AGP Ms. Shruti Dhruve waives service of notice of admission on behalf of the respondents No.2 and 3.
2. The present Letters Patent Appeal emanates from the order dated 17.12.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in the above Special Civil Application.
Page 1 of 5 Uploaded by CAROLINE ANTHONISWAMY(HC00212) on Thu Jan 30 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 30 22:02:16 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/163/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2025 undefined
3. At the outset, learned advocate Mr. Vatsal D. Ruparel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order dated 17.12.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge is a non- speaking order. It is submitted that in identical cases, the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition by directing the respondent authorities to undertake fresh medical examinations of the petitioners therein. Reliance is placed on the order dated 19.03.2024 passed in Special Civil Application No.13233 of 2023 and the order dated 19.03.2024 passed in Special Civil Application No.13027 of 2023. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge has passed the order in case of the candidates like the appellant, who were also not appointed on the same reason which has been assigned to the present appellant.
4. It is submitted by learned advocate for the appellant that the recruitment process was initiated vide advertisement dated 18.06.2021 and the appellant also was selected on such post. Learned advocate Mr. Vatsal D. Ruparel submitted that the appellant was directed to obtain a Fitness Certificate from the Civil Surgeon and accordingly, he had produced the same. Learned advocate for the appellant has also referred to the medical examination done of the present appellant by the Medical Board and he was declared temporary fit till Page 2 of 5 Uploaded by CAROLINE ANTHONISWAMY(HC00212) on Thu Jan 30 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 30 22:02:16 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/163/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2025 undefined 27.04.2024. Thereafter, he was terminated from service by the impugned order dated 17.07.2023 without issuing any notice and his appointment of candidature to the post of Vidhyut Sahayak was cancelled. Thus, it is urged that since the appellant is similarly situated to other employees in whose favour the Court has passed the order, the same treatment should have been extended to him by the learned Single Judge.
5. Learned advocate appearing for the respondent authorities submitted that the order on which the reliance is placed by the appellant would not apply to the case of the present appellant. He has submitted that the impugned order dated 17.07.2023 canceling the candidature of the appellant is appropriately passed as he is unfit for the job of Vidhyut Sahayak.
6. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. A bare perusal of the order passed by the learned Single Judge reveals that neither the facts of the case, nor the submissions nor the tenor of the impugned order dated 17.07.2023 has been discussed. The learned Single Judge has passed a cryptic order dismissing the writ petition only for the reason that the query put by the learned Single Judge was not satisfied by the learned advocate for the appellant-original Page 3 of 5 Uploaded by CAROLINE ANTHONISWAMY(HC00212) on Thu Jan 30 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 30 22:02:16 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/163/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2025 undefined petitioner. Another reason assigned is that since the post which were advertised has already been filled up, and equity is created in favour of the selected persons, the issuance of notice would be a futile exercise. The last reason assigned is of approaching the Court belatedly.
7. We do not subscribe to the view expressed by the learned Single Judge. An employee who has been illegally terminated from service cannot be denied relief merely on the ground that the advertised posts are filled up. In case, a court of law finds that an employee has been illegally terminated or removed or dismissed from service, he has the constitutional right to be reinstated in his post, despite the post having been filled up. While allowing the writ petition, the relief can be appropriately molded, but the writ petitioner cannot be left remediless. In the present case it cannot be said that the appellant-petitioner had approached belatedly. His candidature was cancelled vide order dated 17.07.2023, and thereafter he made a representation to the respondents to extend the same relief which has been extended to other candidates pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in case of other similar candidates. In fact, the appellant cannot be compelled to file a writ petition, if the similar situated candidates who have approached this Court are granted relief in their writ petition. The authorities were under an obligation to examine the case Page 4 of 5 Uploaded by CAROLINE ANTHONISWAMY(HC00212) on Thu Jan 30 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 30 22:02:16 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/163/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2025 undefined of the appellant in light of the orders passed by this Court in cases of other similarly situated candidates. This is a settled legal precedent and hence, we allow the present appeal. Hence, we quash and set aside the order dated 17.12.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge. The matter is remanded back to the learned Single Judge for fresh adjudication.
8. Registry is directed to list the captioned writ petition before the Bench assigned such a roster.
Sd/-
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J) Sd/-
(GITA GOPI, J) CAROLINE / DB # 10 Page 5 of 5 Uploaded by CAROLINE ANTHONISWAMY(HC00212) on Thu Jan 30 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 30 22:02:16 IST 2025