Gujarat High Court
Neha Rameshbhai Rathod vs Vijaykumar Ramsangbhai Chaudhari on 22 July, 2025
Author: A.S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/439/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 439 of 2025
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12862 of 2024
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 439 of 2025
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12862 of 2024
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 441 of 2025
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12862 of 2024
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 441 of 2025
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12862 of 2024
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 101 of 2025
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9754 of 2024
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA Sd/-
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
Sd/-
=============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
=============================================
NEHA RAMESHBHAI RATHOD
Versus
VIJAYKUMAR RAMSANGBHAI CHAUDHARI & ORS.
=============================================
Appearance:
LPA No.439 of 2025:
MR NK MAJMUDAR(430) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR. SHIVAM N MAJMUDAR (14001) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS SHRUTI DHRUVE AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR YATIN OZA, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH
MR DHRUV H CHAUDHARY (12328) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR KAMLESH S KOTAI (6150) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
MR PREMAL R JOSHI (1327) for the Respondent(s) No. 4
Page 1 of 28
Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Mon Jul 28 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 28 21:24:59 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/439/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
LPA No.441 of 2025:
MR. SHALIN MEHTA, SENIOR ADVOCATE
WITH MR DM DEVNANI for the Appellant.
MS SHRUTI DHRUVE AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR YATIN OZA, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH
MR DHRUV H CHAUDHARY (12328) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR KAMLESH S KOTAI (6150) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
MR PREMAL R JOSHI (1327) for the Respondent(s) No. 4
LPA No.101 of 2025:
MR PRAKASH JANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE with
MR DM DEVNANI for the Appellant.
MS SHRUTI DHRUVE AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR R B THAKOR for the Respondent(s) No. 3 and 4
MR PREMAL R JOSHI (1327) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
Date : 22/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA) ORDER ON LPA Nos.439 of 2025 and 441 of 2025 :
1. ADMIT. Learned advocates appear and waive service of notice of admission on behalf of the respective respondents.
2. The captioned appeals being Letters Patent Appeals Nos.439 and 441 of 2025 filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, 1865, are directed against the judgment and order dated 27.02.2025, passed in the captioned writ petition filed by the private respondents. The learned Single Judge has allowed the petitions by directing the respondent-State authorities to delete the names of the present appellants from the select list. Whereas the Letters Patent Appeal No.101 of 2025 is filed against the judgment and order dated 02.07.2024 passed in Special Civil Application No.9754 of 2024 filed by the Page 2 of 28 Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Mon Jul 28 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 28 21:24:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/439/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined appellants - original petitioners (Kishankumar Babubhai Chamar Changecha and others).
3. The entire case of the respective parties hinges on the judgment and order of the Division Bench dated 10.11.2023 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.705 of 2023 in Special Civil Application No. 15597 of 2017.
BRIEF FACTS :
4. The issue raised in the present appeals arise between two sets of candidates; one who possess the qualification as prescribed in Clause No.3.1 of the advertisement i.e. either two years or three years diploma in Agriculture, or a Bachelor in Rural Studies obtained from any university established or incorporated under a Central or State Act in India or any other educational institutions recognized as such or declared as deemed university under Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956; and the second set i.e. the present appellants, who possess the educational qualification of B.Sc.
(Agriculture).
5. The respondent - District Panchayat Service Selection Committee, Mehsana issued an advertisement on 23.11.2016, inviting applications for the post of Gram Sevak (Class-III) in the said district. The advertisement prescribed the requisite qualification for the candidates in Clause 3.1 of the advertisement, as "either two years or three years diploma in Agriculture, or a Bachelor in Rural Studies obtained from any university established or incorporated under a Central or State Act in India or any other educational institutions recognized as Page 3 of 28 Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Mon Jul 28 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 28 21:24:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/439/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined such or declared as deemed university under Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956". The present appellants along with the private respondents applied online for post of Gram Sevak (Class-III). They appeared in the written test, and their names appeared in the provisional list published by the respondent-authorities on 10.03.2017. The said list included the names of the present appellants as well as the private respondents, and all other ineligible candidates possessing different qualifications. It appears that subsequently, a final select list was prepared on 03.04.2017, which only included the names of both the Diploma Holders(original-petitioners) and Degree Holders(appellants). However, on 28.11.2018, a revised final list was published, which included the names of the present appellant(Degree holders), but excluded the names of the private respondents(Diploma holders).
6. The respondents-original writ petitioners assailed the action of the Selection Committee by placing reliance on the judgment and order dated 10.11.2023 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.705 of 2023, and demanded the same treatment. The learned Single Judge has allowed the captioned writ petition being Special Civil Application No.12862 of 2024.
7. We may, at this stage, refer that the candidates(Diploma Holders), who participated in similar recruitment process undertaken by the Banaskantha and Aravalli District Panchayat Service Selection Committees approached this Court, challenging their exclusion by filing writ petitions immediately in the year 2017. Two such candidates filed Special Civil Page 4 of 28 Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Mon Jul 28 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 28 21:24:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/439/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined Application No.15597 of 2017 (Bharatkumar Babubhai Parmar & Anr.), seeking directions to quash the action / deletion of their names from the select list. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by judgment dated 20.03.2023, relying on the earlier judgment dated 22.07.2022 passed by the Coordinate Bench in Special Civil Application No.12008 of 2017 and connected matters.
8. The order dated 20.03.2023 passed in Special Civil Application No.15597 of 2017 was challenged in Letters Patent Appeal No.705 of 2023. The Division Bench, by order dated 10.11.2023, allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge issuing specific directions, which read as under : -
"10. In above light, unless the fresh select list is prepared of all the eligible candidates, excluding the private respondents no. 3 to 11, who are treated to be not eligible, actual merit position would not become clear.
10.1 In view of the above discussion, Letters Appeal is allowed. The following directions are given,
(i) The competent authority of the respondents is directed to prepare a fresh select/merit list.
(ii) The names of the petitioners shall be included in such list which were excluded from the provisional list.
(iii) The authority shall shall not include the names of private respondents in the fresh select list to be prepared as above.
(iv) The fresh final select list will be prepared by including the petitioners, however after excluding respondents no.3 to 11 who are not eligible.
(v) The final merit list shall be accordingly operated category-wise for the purpose of giving appointment. (vi) If the appellants-
petitioners herein stand on merit in the fresh select list, to be operated as above, they shall be given appointment in order of merit."
Page 5 of 28 Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Mon Jul 28 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 28 21:24:59 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/439/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined
9. Pursuant to the directions issued by the Division Bench, the Banaskantha and Aravalli District Panchayat Service Selection Committees issued a fresh select / merit list including the names of the petitioners therein and deleting the names of the respondents, who were holding degrees and were selected.
10. The Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.27101 of 2023 filed against the Division Bench judgment dated 10.11.2023 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.705 of 2023, was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 15.12.2023.
11. Taking shelter of the said judgments, the present private respondents-original petitioners(Diploma holders) filed a captioned writ petition on 31.07.2024 being Special Civil Application No.12862 of 2024, challenging their exclusion, and inclusion of the appellants from the select list prepared by the Mehsana District Panchayat Selection Committee.
12. The learned Single Judge, by exclusively relying on the Division Bench order dated 10.11.2023 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.705 of 2023, allowed the writ petition and directed the respondent-authorities i.e. the District Panchayat Service Selection Committee, Mehsana to delete the names of the present appellants i.e. the candidates of B.Sc.(Agriculture). This led to the filing of the present Letters Patent Appeals.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS :
13. At the outset, learned Senior Advocate Mr. Shalin Mehta, assisted by learned Advocate Mr.D.M. Devnani, for the Page 6 of 28 Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Mon Jul 28 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 28 21:24:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/439/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined appellants has submitted that the private respondents were fence-sitters, who approached the Court in 2024 challenging the selection process that took place in 2017. He has submitted that the appellants have already completed seven years of service as Gram Sevaks, Class-III, and had participated in the recruitment process based on their qualifications i.e. B.Sc. (Agriculture) Degree. It was contended that the private respondents never challenged the selection of the appellants, at the relevant time and hence, the learned Single Judge has erred in mechanically applying the decision of the Division Bench rendered in Banaskantha District to the recruitment of Mehsana District. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court judgment in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava, (2015) 1 S.C.C. 347, to buttress his submission that the private respondents had acquiesced and waived their right to challenge after such a long delay. It was also submitted that the Division Bench judgment was in personam and not in rem, and therefore, could not automatically extend to selection in other districts.
14. Learned advocate Mr. N.K. Majmudar, while adopting the above submissions advanced by learned senior advocate Mr.Shalin Mehta, has further pointed out that the private respondents did not even pray for quashing of the appellants' appointments in their writ petition. He has further submitted that the writ petition nowhere alleged any fraud or malpractice in the selection process. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sankar Mondal Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors., passed in Civil Appeal No.1924 of 2010, dated 15.02.2022, to submit that the recruitment process Page 7 of 28 Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Mon Jul 28 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 28 21:24:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/439/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined having concluded, and a subsequent recruitment process having taken place, the select list is no longer in existence and cannot now be disturbed.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT - DISTRICT PANCHAYAT SERVICE SELECTION COMMITTEE :
15. During the course of hearing, this Court called upon learned advocate Mr.Kotai, appearing for the District Panchayat Service Selection Committee, Mehsana to produce the original record to verify as to whether any fraud had occurred in the recruitment process or not. The original records were produced and the same are ordered to be taken on record. Learned advocate Mr.Kotai has submitted that as on today, the District Panchayat Service Selection Committee, no longer exists, and all recruitment is now conducted by the Gujarat Panchayat Service Selection Board. He has further submitted that the records reveal no fraud in the selection of appellants holding B.Sc. (Agriculture) Degrees. He has referred to the communication dated 01.10.2011 from the Deputy Secretary, General Administration Department, addressed to the Secretary, Gujarat Subordinate Services Selection Board. The communication clarified that wherever the recruitment rules prescribe a Diploma (e.g. in Civil Engineering), candidates holding higher qualifications such as a Degree or Postgraduate Degree cannot be excluded from consideration. This principle was conveyed to the Selection Committee, which then accepted applications from candidates having B.Sc. (Agriculture) degrees.
16. Learned advocate Mr. Kotai, has submitted that initially, all online applications were accepted, irrespective of degree Page 8 of 28 Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Mon Jul 28 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 28 21:24:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/439/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined specification and upon scrutinizing and verifying the physical application forms, the candidates with degrees in B.Sc., M.Sc., and M.A. (non-agriculture) were excluded. The final list dated 03.04.2017 included appellants with B.Sc. (Agriculture) degrees. On the same day, a revised final list was published, including the appellants and excluding the private respondents (Diploma Holder). He has further submitted that no fraud was committed by either by the authorities or by the appellants and at the relevant time, the Recruitment Committee acted based on the understanding that applications of the candidates having higher qualifications of B.Sc. (Agriculture), were acceptable. Learned advocate Mr.Kotai, has further submitted that subsequently, the Gujarat Panchayat Service Class-III Recruitment Rules, 2014, were amended vide Notification dated 21.03.2020, explicitly including B.Sc. (Agriculture) and B.E. (Agriculture) as eligible qualifications. Thus, it is contended that from 21.03.2020 onward, the appellants would clearly fulfill the requisite eligibility .
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT-STATE AUTHORITIES :
17. The learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms.Shruti Dhruve has submitted that the order of the learned Single Judge, in case is sustained, it will have wide ramifications and it will extend to recruitment process held in all districts of the entire State, and will have wide ramifications. However, she has submitted that communication dated 01.10.2011, written by the General Administration Department (the GAD) to Gujarat Service Selection Board in respect of appointment of Surveyor Class-II in the Revenue Department, could not have Page 9 of 28 Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Mon Jul 28 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 28 21:24:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/439/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined been followed by the respective District Panchayat Service Selection Committees without consultation from the parent department.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PRIVATE RESPONDENTS (ORIGINAL PETITIONERS) :
18. Finally, learned Senior Advocate Mr. Yatin Oza, appearing for the private respondents (Diploma Holders), has submitted that the Single Judge's order should not be interfered with, as it is based entirely on the Division Bench judgment dated 10.11.2023 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.705 of 2023, which has attained finality following the dismissal of the SLP.
He has further submitted that the appellants' initial appointment was contrary to the recruitment rules and the advertisement. He has submitted that the original petitioners, who had been duly selected, were excluded only because the applications of ineligible candidates (i.e., the appellants) were accepted. According to him, the Division Bench judgment operates in rem, not merely in personam, and applies to the recruitment process in all districts or the State.
19. Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Oza has further asserted that it appears that fraud was committed at the relevant time by members of the Selection Committee. He has alleged that the appellants secured appointment via a backdoor entry, leading to the wrongful exclusion of the private respondents. He urged that the same treatment be extended to the present respondents and supported the deletion of the appellants' names from the select list, as directed by the learned Single Judge and hence, it is urged that the Letters Patent Appeals Page 10 of 28 Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Mon Jul 28 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 28 21:24:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/439/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined may not be accepted. In support of his submissions, learned Senior Advocate Mr.Oza has placed reliance on the recent judgment of the Supreme Court dated 03.04.2025, passed in the case of State of West Bengal vs. Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee) and Others, 2025 INSC 437.
20. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, at length.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION :
21. The facts established from the pleadings indicate that the private respondents participated in the recruitment process pursuant to the advertisement issued by the respondent - District Panchayat on 23.11.2016 for filling up the post of Gram Sevak in Mehsana District. The qualification prescribed in the said advertisement was either two years or three years diploma in Agriculture, or a Bachelor in Rural Studies obtained from any university established or incorporated under a Central or State Act in India or any other educational institutions recognized as such or declared as deemed university under Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956.
22. We may, at this stage, also refer to the relevant rules governing the appointment to the post of Gram Sevak (Class- III), namely the Gujarat Superior Panchayat Services (Class-III) rules, 2014. As per the said rules, the prescribed qualification is "either two years or three years diploma in Agriculture, or a Bachelor in Rural Studies obtained from any university established or incorporated under a Central or State Act in Page 11 of 28 Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Mon Jul 28 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 28 21:24:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/439/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined India or any other educational institutions recognized as such or declared as deemed university under Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956". The District Panchayat prepared a provisional list dated 10.03.2017, which included the Degree Holders and Diploma Holders along with other ineligible candidates. It appears that subsequently, a final select list was prepared on 03.04.2017, which only included the names of both the Diploma Holders(original- petitioners) and Degree Holders(appellants). However, on 28.11.2018, a revised final list was published, which included the names of the present appellant(Degree holders), but excluded the names of the private respondents(Diploma holders).
23. The appellants possess B.Sc. and M.Sc. degrees in Agriculture, and were accordingly, appointed as Gram Sevaks (Class-III) based on their academic qualifications in Agriculture. Albeit, the recruitment rules and the advertisement clearly specify that candidates applying for the post of Gram Sevak (Class-III) must possess "either two years or three years diploma in Agriculture, or a Bachelor in Rural Studies", the appellants were nonetheless selected based on their degrees in Agriculture.
24. The eligibility prescribed in the advertisement was premised on the Rule 3 of the Gram Sevak (Class-III), namely the Gujarat Superior Panchayat Services (Class III) Rules, 2014, which was framed by the State Government in exercise of powers of Section 227 read with Section 274 of the Gujarat Pachayat Act, 1973 for the purpose of the post of Gram Sevak Page 12 of 28 Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Mon Jul 28 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 28 21:24:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/439/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined (Class III). Subsequently, the aforesaid rules were amended by the Notification dated 21.03.2022, wherein Rule 2 has been substituted and the education of qualification of Bachelor of Rural Studies (except the Bachelor of Rural Studies in Home Science / B.Sc. Agriculture / B.Sc. Horticulture degree), have been introduced. The appellants possess B.Sc. and M.Sc. Agriculture, whereas the private respondents - original petitioners are diploma holders. Both the categories of candidates applied for the recruitment process pursuant to the advertisement dated 23.11.2016.
25. Upon perusal of the original record, it was observed by us that in the online applications submitted by the appellants, they had stated that they possess a Bachelor's degree in Rural Studies from Government approved institutes. The online application also contained an undertaking, which reads as under: -
"Undertaking I, Pareshkumar Jayantibhai Rathod, hereby declare that the above- mentioned educational information is true and correct as per my original documents. If any of the information is found to be false, my candidature will be cancelled and I will be disqualified. I accept all the rules and conditions mentioned in the current merit-based recruitment advertisement.
Sd/-
Signature:
(Pareshkumar Rathod) "
26. From the original record, it appears that upon physical verification of the documents in the check-list, the appellants, in column No.11, have mentioned that they possess B.Sc. Agriculture and in Item No.21 of the Check-list, the Committee made an endorsement "does not possess eligibility". The Page 13 of 28 Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Mon Jul 28 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 28 21:24:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/439/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined Committee comprising of three members; namely, a Junior Clerk, a Deputy Chitnis, and a Team Leader (a Class-II Officer), at the first instance opined that the appellants, who possess B.Sc, Agriculture does not possess the requisite eligibility. However, on the same day, it appears that correspondingly, the Committee has changed the opinion, and a further endorsement appears to be made referring to the communication dated 01.10.2011. By placing reliance on this communication dated 01.10.2011, the Committee has declared the appellants, who possess B.Sc. Agriculture, as "qualified". It is pertinent to note that this communication was addressed by the Deputy Secretary, General Administration Department, to the Secretary, Gujarat Subordinate Service Selection Board, Gandhinagar. Upon examination of this letter, it is manifest that the same pertains to the recruitment process for the post of Surveyors under the Office of the Settlement Commissioner and Land Records. This mentions that the candidates possessing higher qualifications should not be disqualified and their applications must also be considered. On the strength of this communication dated 01.10.2011, the three Members Committee declared the appellants eligible based upon their education qualification (B.Sc. Agriculture Degree). It is important to note that this letter was not issued by the respondent District Panchayat or by their parent department, i.e., the Panchayat and Rural Housing Department. Despite this, the Selection Committee relied on that communication, specifically meant for recruitment to the post of Surveyors under the Revenue Department and applied the same analogy in the recruitment process undertaken by the District Panchayat Committee of Mehsana District for filling up the post Page 14 of 28 Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Mon Jul 28 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 28 21:24:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/439/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined of Gram Sevak, thereby including the appellants and private respondents in the final selection list. This was an error committed by the respondent-Selection Committee, since the communication of other department could not have been applied to the recruitment process without obtaining sense from the parent department, i.e The Panchayat Department.
27. As mentioned hereinabove, in the final select list, the names of the private respondents, who possessed the requisite qualifications as per the Rules and the advertisement, were displaced by including the names of the appellants, who were holding B.Sc. (Agriculture) degrees. These irregularities were noted by the Division Bench of this Court, and accordingly, by judgment dated 10.11.2023 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.705 of 2023, the Division Bench, in the case concerning recruitment done by Banaskantha District Panchayat Committee, ordered the deletion of candidates having B.Sc. (Agriculture) degrees from the selection list. It appears that the said judgement was followed by the Division Bench in the recruitment of Aravali District, in Letters Patent Appeal No.1465 of 2023 disposed of vide order dated 19.12.2023.
28. The aforesaid judgments, delivered on 10.11.2023 and 19.12.2023 pertained to appointments of Gram Sevaks made in Banaskantha and Aravalli Districts by respective selection Committees. Drawing a parallel from that judgment, the private respondents in the present case, relating to Mehsana District, filed a writ petition in the year 2024, challenging the appointments of the present appellants. This was despite the fact that the original recruitment and appointments took place back in 2017.
Page 15 of 28 Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Mon Jul 28 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 28 21:24:59 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/439/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined
29. The learned Single Judge by placing reliance on the decisions of the Division Bench passed pari materia direction directing the District Panchayat Service Selection Committee, Mehsana to delete the names of the present appellants from the final selection list. Furthermore, it was ordered that the names of the private respondents be included in the fresh selection list to be prepared by the respondent authorities.
30. Thus, the issue with regard to the deletion of the candidates, who possess B.Sc. degrees from the select list, was laid quietus by the Division Bench in a writ petition which was filed in the year 2017 so far as the recruitment of Banaskantha and Aravalli Districts is concerned.
31. It is pertinent to note that the writ petition in question was filed solely on the basis of the Division Bench decision in Letters Patent Appeal No.705 of 2023, which stems out from Special Civil Application No.15597 of 2017. Notably, in that case, the petitioner had challenged the action of the Banaskantha District Service Selection Committee promptly specifically objecting to the inclusion of candidates with B.Sc. (Agriculture) degrees -- an inclusion which led to the exclusion of candidates possessing either a Diploma in Agriculture or a Bachelor's degree in Rural Studies.
32. The appellants, in support of their submissions, placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Arvind Kumar Srivastava (supra), contending that the judgment rendered by the Division Bench in the case of the Banaskantha District, is the judgment in rem. Consequently, Page 16 of 28 Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Mon Jul 28 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 28 21:24:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/439/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined before the learned Single Judge, it was prayed that the similar treatment cannot be extended to the petitioners (private respondents) after an inordinate delay of nearly seven years, even if the private respondents are similarly situated to those appellants. In Arvind Kumar Srivastava (supra), the Supreme Court, while dealing with the issue of delay and laches in filing claims by similarly situated persons, held as under: -
"22. The legal principles which emerge from the reading of the aforesaid judgments, cited both by the appellants as well as the respondents, can be summed up as under:
22.1 Normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the Court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Not doing so would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This principle needs to be applied in service matters more emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all similarly situated persons should be treated similarly. Therefore, the normal rule would be that merely because other similarly situated persons did not approach the Court earlier, they are not to be treated differently.
22.2 However, this principle is subject to well recognized exceptions in the form of laches and delays as well as acquiescence. Those persons who did not challenge the wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced into the same and woke up after long delay only because of the reason that their counterparts who had approached the Court earlier in time succeeded in their efforts, then such employees cannot claim that the benefit of the judgment rendered in the case of similarly situated persons be extended to them. They would be treated as fence-sitters and laches and delays, and/or the acquiescence, would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim.
22.3 However, this exception may not apply in those cases where the judgment pronounced by the Court was Page 17 of 28 Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Mon Jul 28 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 28 21:24:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/439/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined judgment in rem with intention to give benefit to all similarly situated persons, whether they approached the Court or not. With such a pronouncement the obligation is cast upon the authorities to itself extend the benefit thereof to all similarly situated person. Such a situation can occur when the subject matter of the decision touches upon the policy matters, like scheme of regularisation and the like (see K.C. Sharma & Ors. v. Union of India (supra).
On the other hand, if the judgment of the Court was in personam holding that benefit of the said judgment shall accrue to the parties before the Court and such an intention is stated expressly in the judgment or it can be impliedly found out from the tenor and language of the judgment, those who want to get the benefit of the said judgment extended to them shall have to satisfy that their petition does not suffer from either laches and delays or acquiescence."
33. We may, at this stage, also refer to the judgment in the case of S.S. Balu vs. State of Kerala, (2009) 2 S.C.C. 479, wherein the issue of delay of latches, the Supreme Court has held thus : -
"17. It is also well settled principle of law that "delay defeats equity". Government Order was issued on 15.1.2002. Appellants did not file any writ application questioning the legality and validity thereof. Only after the writ petitions filed by others were allowed and State of Kerala preferred an appeal thereagainst, they impleaded themselves as party respondents. It is now a trite law that where the writ petitioner approaches the High Court after a long delay, reliefs prayed for may be denied to them on the ground of delay and laches irrespective of the fact that they are similarly situated to the other candidates who obtain the benefit of the judgment. It is, thus, not possible for us to issue any direction to the State of Kerala or the Commission to appoint the appellants at this stage.
In New Delhi Minicipal Council v. Pan Singh and Ors. (2007) 9 SCC 278, this Court held:
"16. There is another aspect of the matter which cannot be lost sight of. The respondents herein filed a writ petition after 17 years. They did not agitate their grievances for a long time. They, as noticed herein, did not claim parity with the 17 Page 18 of 28 Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Mon Jul 28 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 28 21:24:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/439/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined workmen at the earliest possible opportunity. They did not implead themselves as parties even in the reference made by the State before the Industrial Tribunal. It is not their case that after 1982, those employees who were employed or who were recruited after the cut-off date have been granted the said scale of pay. After such a long time, therefore, the writ petitions could not have been entertained even if they are similarly situated. It is trite that the discretionary jurisdiction may not be exercised in favour of those who approach the court after a long time. Delay and laches are relevant factors for exercise of equitable jurisdiction."
34. In the case of Arvind Kumar Srivastava (supra), the facts indicate that the respondent-employees approached the High Court seeking the same benefits that had been granted in an earlier round of litigation to similarly situated persons. The Supreme Court referred to such petitioners as "fence-sitters." The facts reveal that certain candidates, whose appointments were cancelled, promptly challenged the action by filing a suit in the year 1987. Subsequently, other similarly situated candidates approached the Tribunal, which ruled in their favour in 1991. The State challenged this decision by filing a writ petition before the High Court, which was dismissed in 1992. A Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed before the Supreme Court also met the same fate and was dismissed in 1994, however, the respondent-employees waited until the dismissal of the SLP and only thereafter, in 1995, filed a writ petition seeking the same reliefs that had been granted to the others. Albeit they succeeded before the High Court, the State assailed the judgment for extending the benefit to these delayed claimants, and the matter ultimately reached the Supreme Court. In that context, the Supreme Court precribed certain principles regarding delay and laches in service matters. The Supreme Court observed that while the normal Page 19 of 28 Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Mon Jul 28 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 28 21:24:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/439/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined rule in service jurisprudence is that similarly situated persons should be treated alike, this principle is subject to certain caveats, specifically where the delay, laches, and acquiescence are evident. It was held that persons who did not challenge an illegal action within a reasonable time, and who chose to remain passive until others succeeded in court, cannot later claim parity merely on that basis, such individuals are to be treated as "fence-sitters," and their claims can be dismissed solely on the grounds of delay and laches.
35. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has clarified that this exception would not apply in cases where the judgment, whose benefits is sought is a judgment in rem, i.e., a judgment passed with an intent to confer benefits upon all similarly situated individuals, regardless of whether they approached the Court or not. Accordingly, the core issue in the present matter is whether the judgment dated 10.11.2023 passed by the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No.705 of 2023 can be considered a judgment in rem or merely a judgment in personam.
36. It is not in dispute that various District Panchayat Service Selection Committees across the State of Gujarat undertook the process of recruiting Gram Sevaks, and that similar error was committed by all of them, giving preference to candidates holding a B.Sc. (Agriculture) degree, and thereby displacing candidates possessing a Diploma in Agriculture or a Bachelor's degree in Rural Studies. A close reading of the Division Bench's judgment reveals that the directions issued therein were limited in scope and applied only to the selection process Page 20 of 28 Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Mon Jul 28 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 28 21:24:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/439/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined undertaken by the District Panchayat Service Selection Committee of Banaskantha and Aravalli. There was no general directive applicable to other districts or to similarly situated appointees elsewhere in the State. Albeit the State Government was a party to those proceedings, neither the Banaskantha District Panchayat Service Selection Committee nor the State Government sought any orders affecting recruitment processes in other districts. Therefore, it is evident from the nature of the lis and the operative portion of the judgment that the Division Bench decision was not a judgment in rem, but operated solely with respect to the recruitment process in Banaskantha and Aravalli Districts.
37. Thus, the private respondents (original petitioners) can be categorized as fence-sitters. It is a settled principle that "the delay defeats equity". In the case of S.S. Balu & Another (supra), the Supreme Court, dealing with an analogous issue, invoked this very principle to reject the claim of employees who were seeking similar treatment as extended to others. The facts of S.S. Balu & Another (supra), reveal that the concerned employees had applied for the post of School Assistant, pursuant to which a rank list was prepared in 1997 and remained valid until 2000. Their names appeared on the merit list; however, no appointments were made during the currency of the list. Consequently, a writ petition was filed before the Kerala High Court, seeking directions to fill all vacancies and issue appointment letters. It is noteworthy that the appellants had impleaded themselves as parties in those writ petitions. During the pendency of the proceedings, the Page 21 of 28 Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Mon Jul 28 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 28 21:24:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/439/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined High Court issued certain directions but ultimately disposed of the matter due to disputes regarding the number of available vacancies. Subsequently, another writ petition was filed in 2004 by two candidates, praying for quashing the decision of the Government to fill 175 vacancies from the select list. The High Court allowed the writ petition. Importantly, the appellants before the Supreme Court were not parties to this second writ petition before the Kerala High Court. However, during the appeal process initiated by the State of Kerala before the Division Bench, the appellants got themselves impleaded in the writ appeal proceedings. The Division Bench allowed the appeal, issuing directions also covering the appellants, who had become parties at that stage and were also involved in the earlier litigation. Eventually, the appellants challenged the order of the Division Bench before the Supreme Court. After a comprehensive analysis of various precedents, the Supreme Court held as under: -
"17. It is also well settled principle of law that "delay defeats equity". Government Order was issued on 15.1.2002. Appellants did not file any writ application questioning the legality and validity thereof. Only after the writ petitions filed by others were allowed and State of Kerala preferred an appeal thereagainst, they impleaded themselves as party respondents. It is now a trite law that where the writ petitioner approaches the High Court after a long delay, reliefs prayed for may be denied to them on the ground of delay and laches irrespective of the fact that they are similarly situated to the other candidates who obtain the benefit of the judgment. It is, thus, not possible for us to issue any direction to the State of Kerala or the Commission to appoint the appellants at this stage.
In New Delhi Minicipal Council v. Pan Singh and Ors. (2007) 9 SCC 278, this Court held:
"16. There is another aspect of the matter which cannot be lost sight of. The respondents herein filed a writ petition after 17 Page 22 of 28 Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Mon Jul 28 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 28 21:24:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/439/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined years. They did not agitate their grievances for a long time. They, as noticed herein, did not claim parity with the 17 workmen at the earliest possible opportunity. They did not implead themselves as parties even in the reference made by the State before the Industrial Tribunal. It is not their case that after 1982, those employees who were employed or who were recruited after the cut-off date have been granted the said scale of pay. After such a long time, therefore, the writ petitions could not have been entertained even if they are similarly situated. It is trite that the discretionary jurisdiction may not be exercised in favour of those who approach the court after a long time. Delay and laches are relevant factors for exercise of equitable jurisdiction.""
38. Thus, the Supreme Court, by invoking the principle that delay defeats equity, dismissed the appeals in the case of S.S. Balu & Another (supra), by observing that it is now trite law that where the writ petitioner approaches the High Court after a long delay, reliefs prayed for may be denied to them on the ground of delay and laches, irrespective of the fact that they were similarly situated to other candidates who obtained the benefit of the judgment.
39. Accordingly, the Supreme Court declined to issue any direction to the State of Kerala or the Public Service Commission to appoint the appellants at the belated stage.
40. We may also note that, subsequently, vide notification dated 21.03.2022, the State Government amended the Gujarat Superior Panchayat Services (Class-III) Rules, 2014, by introducing B.Sc. (Agriculture) as an eligible qualification, something which was absent in the original 2014 Rules. It also came to our attention that following the impugned recruitment undertaken by the respective District Panchayat Service Page 23 of 28 Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Mon Jul 28 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 28 21:24:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/439/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined Committees across the State, these Committees were dissolved, and henceforth, all recruitment was centralized and undertaken by the Gujarat Panchayat Service Selection Board. The learned Single Judge, in the present case, issued directions pari materia to those issued by the Division Bench vide order dated 10.11.2023 in Letters Patent Appeal No.705 of 2023. However, a crucial distinction remains that the writ petitions in the Banaskantha and Aravalli Districts were filed in 2017, immediately following the recruitment, whereas the private respondents in the present case approached the Court only in 2024. Therefore, the private respondents herein can appropriately be termed as fence-sitters.
41. The private respondents before us however, have argued that the appellants obtained their appointments by playing fraud, thereby vitiating the entire selection process.
42. Upon examination of the record, we find no evidence of fraud on the part of the appellants. At the time of submitting their physical documents, the appellants clearly stated that their qualification was B.Sc. (Agriculture), and the three- member selection committee accepted this, relying upon the communication dated 01.10.2011 issued by the General Administration Department. It appears that in the entire State in all the respective District Panchayat Service Selection Committees similar pattern was followed and hence, the issue relating to fraud committed by the appellants or the similarly situated candidates having B.Sc. (Agriculture) cannot be accepted as it is impossible to comprehend that in the entire State the candidates possessing B.Sc. Degrees would have Page 24 of 28 Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Mon Jul 28 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 28 21:24:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/439/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined committed fraud and also correspondingly, such District Panchyat Service Selection Committees have also aided them.
43. While filling the online applications, due to the absence of a specific option for B.Sc. (Agriculture), the appellants selected Bachelor in Rural Studies from a Government-approved university. They also provided an undertaking to abide by the final decision of the selection committee. The committee initially noted that the appellants were ineligible, but subsequently accepted their candidature by applying the above-mentioned communication dated 01.10.2011. This amounts to an error on the part of the selection committee. Importantly, the selection committee did not seek clarification or approval from the State Government or the Panchayat Department (Respondent No.1) before applying the said communication in the case of the appellants.
44. It is also noticed that, in the earlier proceedings before the Division Bench, the original record of recruitment was not examined. In view of the fact that over seven years have passed, the appellants have been in continuous service, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge erred in setting aside the appellants' appointments exclusively on the basis of the earlier decision of the Division Bench in the Banaskantha and Aravalli Districts recruitment process.
45. However, we may also clarify at this stage that merely because, subsequently the Rules amended, and the qualification, which the appellants were lacking, and is introduced later on, cannot be the ground to validate the Page 25 of 28 Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Mon Jul 28 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 28 21:24:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/439/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined appointments, which did not meet with the eligibility criteria under the unamended rules. In light of the peculiar facts before us, and only on the premise of the legal principle enunciated by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions, we are not inclined to disturb the appointments of the appellants after so many years. Any interference at this stage will set a chain reaction in the recruitment/appointment in the entire State, and the candidates, like the respondents, who have slept over their rights will approach this court claiming similar parity leading to further complications in the recruitment process, which is over in the year 2017, more particularly, when the writ petitions were filed by the respondents, neither the select list was in existence nor the Recruiting Body.
46. Resultantly, the Letters Patents Appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge is quashed and set aside.
47. As a consequence, the connected civil applications do not survive and the same stand disposed of accordingly.
ORDER ON LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.101 OF 2023 IN R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.9754 OF 2024 :
48. The captioned letters patent appeal is absolutely ill- conceived. The appellants-original writ petitioners (B.Sc. degree holders), who were party respondents in Letters Patent Appeal No.705 of 2023, which was allowed in favour of those- appellants (Diploma holders) vide judgment and order dated 10.11.2023, and the present appellants-original respondents of Page 26 of 28 Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Mon Jul 28 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 28 21:24:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/439/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined said letters patent appeal were directed to be deleted from the select list. The said judgement and order was further challenged before the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition, which came to be dismissed.
49. The learned Single Judge, vide order dated 02.07.2024 passed in the captioned writ petition being Special Civil Application No.9754 of 2024, has precisely dismissed the writ petition since their grievance was already examined by the Division Bench. The appellants (B.Sc. degree holders) have challenged the communication dated 24.06.2024, which is issued by the respondent-authority pursuant to the direction issued by the Co-ordinate Bench in the judgment and order dated 10.11.2023, in which they were party.
50. We find no error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition. The only remedy available to the appellants was to challenge the said order by filing a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court. They did so by filing SLP (C) No.27101 of 2023, which has also been dismissed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 15.12.2022. After failing before the Division Bench and the Supreme Court, the appellants have attempted to resurrect the issue again by filing the present appeal and also review application, which is also dismissed.
51. Learned senior advocate Mr.Prakash Jani has submitted that 52 seats still remain vacant, and the appellants can be accommodated. However, we are not inclined to allow the frivolous appeal on this ground, as the Recruitment Body has Page 27 of 28 Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Mon Jul 28 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 28 21:24:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/439/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined been changed, and the entire recruitment process is now undertaken by the Gujarat Panchayat Service Selection Board. The vacancies that have arisen can only be filled in by the said Board and not by the District Service Selection Committee, which had conducted the recruitment process at the relevant time.
52. It is pertinent to note that, following the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition (SLP), the present appellants also filed a review application along with Civil Application (for Condonation of Delay) No.2026 of 2025, which was also dismissed by this Court vide order dated 02.05.2025.
53. Accordingly, the present appeal, being frivolous is wholly misconceived and stands rejected.
Sd/-
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J) Sd/-
(R. T. VACHHANI, J) MAHESH/02 Page 28 of 28 Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Mon Jul 28 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 28 21:24:59 IST 2025