Gujarat High Court
Rameshchandra Hargovinddas Bhatt vs State Of Gujarat on 24 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16644/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16644 of 2017
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
RAMESHCHANDRA HARGOVINDDAS BHATT & ANR.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
DECEASED LITIGANT THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS/ REPRESTENTATIVES
for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR. VISHAL P THAKKER(7079) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1.1
MS. SURBHI BHATI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 24/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner for seeking the following reliefs:
"(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus, or a writ in the nature of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order the to direction, or respondents to operate the select list, wherein the petitioner had secured no. 1 position, and regularize the services of the petitioner with retrospective effect and grant the benefits of regular services, followed by the pay revisions Page 1 of 15 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Jul 28 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 28 21:40:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16644/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2025 undefined available in the interest of justice;
(B) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus, or a writ in the nature of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, to the respondents to operate the select list, wherein the petitioner had secured no. 1 position, and regularize the services of the petitioner with retrospective effect and grant the benefits of regular services, followed by the pay revisions available in the interest of justice, pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition;
(C) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus, or a writ in the nature of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, to the respondents to consider the services of the petitione5r regularized 27.11.1996; as on (D) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to direct the respondent authority to pay the difference of salary as per the prevalent pay commission from 27.11.1996, as the services of the petitioner are entitled for regularization, as per the select list of 27.11.1996, along with interest in the interest of justice;
(E) YOUR LORDSHIPSbe pleased to direct the respondent authority to pay the difference of salary as per the prevalent pay commission from 27.11.1996, as the services of the petitioner are entitled for regularization, as per the Page 2 of 15 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Jul 28 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 28 21:40:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16644/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2025 undefined select list of 27.11.1996, along with interest in the interest of justice; pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition;
(F) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to direct the respondents to pay the gratuity, pension, and all other consequential benefits flowing out of the service of the petitioner in the interest of justice;
(G) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to direct the respondents to pay the gratuity, pension, and all other consequential benefits flowing out of the service of the petitioner in the interest of justice, pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition;
(H) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to grant such other and further reliefs as deemed fit in the interest of Justice;"
2. Brief facts as stated in the memo of the petition are as under:
2.1 It is the case of the petitioner in this petition that the petitioner has approached this Hon'ble Court praying intervention of this Court, or issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction, to the respondents to implement / execute the select list dtd. 27.11.1996, flowing out of the interview regarding appointment on the regular post Page 3 of 15 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Jul 28 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 28 21:40:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16644/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2025 undefined of wireman, in the office of the respondent no. 2 employer. It is pertinent to note that, the post on which the petitioner was working, and the post in question is perinneal in nature and was required by the employer respondents, and the petitioner was at sr. no. 1 of the said select list which was not operated /executed by the respondent, and thus have discriminated the petitioner of regularization of service after being selected in the interview, in contravention of various decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and also as per the Articles 14 & 19 of the Constitution of India, and further pay the difference of salary as per the prevailing pay scale, and also pay the petitioner to the petitioner following the order of reinstatement, as well be pleased to direct the respondent authority to pay the difference of salary as per the prevalent from commission pay 27.11.1996.
2.2 It is further the case of the petitioner in this petition that the petitioner joined the office of the respondent as a daily wager wireman on 01.05.1986 on the regularly sanctioned post, and the work taken from the petitioner was perennial in nature. The respondent employers had been showing the work taken from the Page 4 of 15 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Jul 28 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 28 21:40:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16644/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2025 undefined petitioner as that of five hours a day, but in fact, the petitioner used to work for more than eight hours a day and the petitioner was being paid only Rs. 300 per month after working for more than eight hours a day with the respondents. It is further the case of the petitioner in this petition that the post on which the petitioner had been working for all this years is permanent in nature, and the work done by the petitioner was very much required by the respondents and also there was a vacancy for the post on which the petitioner had been working, in the existing setup of the respondent, and the same is very much clear from the reply of the respondents to the RTI application filed by the petitioner seeking for certain information regarding the post in question. It is further the case of the petitioner in this petition that the respondents have given partial reply to the information sought by the petitioner. It is thus, crystal clear, that there was a requirement for the work of the petitioner, and that there was also a post for the same, in the existing setup of the respondent, and that the pay grade for the post was of 950-1400.Page 5 of 15 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Jul 28 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 28 21:40:32 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16644/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2025 undefined 2.3 It is further the case of the petitioner in this petition that the services of the petitioner ought to have been regularized by the respondents in the existing set up, which was having a sanctioned post of wireman, in the pay grade of 950-1400 and that too very much in the year 1996, as per the result sheet of 27.11.1996, wherein the present petitioner had been selected at no. 1 position out of all 26 candidates that had appeared. It is further the case of the petitioner in this petition that thus the act of the respondents, ignoring their own interview results, speaks the volumes of the high headedness of the respondents and discriminatory practice of the respondent, thereby denying the petitioner herein of his legitimate rights. It is further the case of the petitioner in this petition that the petitioner reached the age of superannuation and considering the services of the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled for all the consequential benefits flowing out of his services including pension, gratuity, and all other consequential benefits flowing out of the services of the petitioner. 2.4 It is further the case of the petitioner in this petition that hence, the petitioner herein had been Page 6 of 15 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Jul 28 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 28 21:40:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16644/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2025 undefined selected as a regular employee n the year 1996 itself, but the same was not processed in the true spirits. Hence this inaction of the respondents, needs be termed bad in law by this Hon'ble Court and the petitioner is required to be granted all the benefits available to a regular employee, plus the arrears of such benefits as per the latest prevailing pay scale, along with time to time increments, and interest accrued thereon on the delayed payment of such legitimate rights of the petitioner. It is further the case of the petitioner in this petition that many workman under the respondents have been absorbed in the regular setup, and are getting the benefits of regular employees, some of them were even juniors to the present petitioner and have been granted permanency, who have been working less than the petitioner's working hours and span of service and are getting regular pay as per the grades since then, and the present petitioner has been ignored for the benefits for the reasons best known to the respondents, and with a biased intention. Hence, the present petition has been preferred.
3. Heard Mr. Vishal Thakker, learned advocate for the Page 7 of 15 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Jul 28 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 28 21:40:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16644/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2025 undefined petitioner No.1 and Ms. Surbhi Bhati, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent - State.
4. Mr. Vishal Thakker, learned advocate for the petitioner No.1 has submitted that the petitioner is seeking direction to the respondents to implement / execute the select list dated 27.11.1996 flowing out of the interview regarding appointment on the regular post of wireman in the Office of the respondent No. 2 employer and the petitioner is working on the post, which is perennial in nature and was required by the employer respondents, and the petitioner was at Sr. No. 1 of the said select list, which was not operated /executed by the respondent, and thus has discriminated the petitioner for regularization of service after being selected in the interview, which is in contravention of various decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and in violation of Articles 14 & 19 of the Constitution of India. He has relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Vinodkumar Rajabhai Rathod Vs. State of Gujarat and Others reported in 2005 (2) GLR 1274, and has submitted that the Government could not deny the appointment on the ground that the validity of select list Page 8 of 15 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Jul 28 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 28 21:40:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16644/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2025 undefined has lapsed. He has further submitted that in view of circular issued by the department on 26.12.1980, the petitioner, who is working with the respondent, is required to be absorbed in the department and, therefore, he has submitted that present petition is required to be allowed by considering the above-mentioned aspects and consider the fact that the respondent has not executive the select list dated 27.11.1996 as mentioned hereinabove and, therefore, he has prayed to allow the present petition.
5. Per contra, Ms. Surbhi Bhati, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent - State by opposing the prayers made in the present petition, has submitted that the petitioner has been employed by respondent No.2 as part timer (Class-IV Category) wireman on 01.05.1996 and he was retired on 31.12.2010. She has further submitted that as such, the petitioner has alternative statutory remedy to seek regularization in service before the Labour Court and the present petition is therefore required to be dismissed on the ground of alternative efficacious remedy. She has further contended that there is no sanctioned post available with the Page 9 of 15 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Jul 28 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 28 21:40:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16644/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2025 undefined respondent and, therefore, the services of the present petitioner are not taken as per the select list. She has further submitted that the petitioner was serving on fixed wage basis and it cannot be said that the petitioner is dispensing his services on sanctioned post. From the record presented before this court, it suggests that the post of the wireman is Class-III post. She has further submitted that the petitioner was serving as part timer (Class-IV Category), which can be considered as Class-IV category. She has further submitted that pursuant to the advertisement of the year 1996, select list has been prepared but due to non-vacancy, the select list is not operated and the petitioner has filed this petition after much delay almost 21 years from the date of select list and seven years after his retirement from service. This itself shows that the petitioner is not vigilant and filing this petition with some ulterior motive. In support of his submissions, she has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
(i) The Government of Tamilnadu and Another Vs. Tamil Nadu Makkal Nala Paniyalargal and Others reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 294, more particularly, and has relied upon paragraph 47 is relevant and (ii) A Umarani Vs. Page 10 of 15 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Jul 28 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 28 21:40:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16644/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2025 undefined Registrar, Co-operative Societies reported in 2004 LawSuit (SC) 718, more particularly, has relied upon paragraphs 42, 43, 52 and 69 and has submitted that the present petition is not maintainable and is required to be dismissed.
6.1 I have considered the rival submissions made at the bar. It transpires that the petitioner is essentially challenging the non-execution of the select list dated 27.11.1996 and thereafter, the petitioner has worked as part timer till he reached at the age of superannuation in the year 2010. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed the present petition on 23.08.2017 and, therefore, there is apparent delay and laches of more than 21 years. Moreover considering the fact that select list will be in existence for one year after publication of advertisement or until the next advertisement whichever is earlier. Therefore also, there is no substance in the say of the petitioner as such prayer is also afterthought and that too after getting retired in the year 2010 and now the petitioner is claiming the operation of the select list of the year 1996, this speaks about volume about itself. 6.2 It is also relevant to note that respondent has Page 11 of 15 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Jul 28 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 28 21:40:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16644/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2025 undefined specifically contended that there is no vacancy existing after the select list is prepared and, therefore, there is no question of giving any appointment as per the select list.
6.3 It is fruitful to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court cited by learned AGP in the case of (i) The Government of Tamilnadu and Another (supra), more particularly, and has relied upon paragraph 47 is relevant, as under:
"47. There cannot be a quarrel with the proposition that the Courts cannot direct for creations of posts. In the case of Divisional Manager Aravali Golf Club and Another Vs. Chander Hass and Another5, it has been held as under:
"15. The court cannot direct the creation of posts. Creation and sanction of posts is a prerogative of the executive or legislative authorities and the court cannot arrogate to itself this purely executive or legislative function, and direct creation of posts in any organisation. This Court has time and again pointed out that the creation of a post is an executive or legislative function and it involves economic factors. Hence the courts cannot take upon themselves the power of creation of a post. Therefore, the directions given by the High Court and the first appellate court to create the posts of tractor driver and regularise the services of the respondents against the said posts cannot be sustained and Page 12 of 15 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Jul 28 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 28 21:40:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16644/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2025 undefined are hereby set aside."
6.4 It is also fruitful to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court cited by learned AGP in the case of A Umarani (supra), more particularly, has relied upon paragraphs 42, 43, 52 and 69, as under:
"42. The said decisions of this Court have received approval of a 3-Judge Bench of this Court in B.N. Nagarajan and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others [(1979) 4 SCC 507] it was held that the procedures for appointment as contained in the Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India must be complied with.
43. No regularisation is, thus, permissible in exercise of the statutory power conferred under Article 162 of the Constitution if the appointments have been made in contravention of the statutory Rules.
52. In Dr. Chanchal Goyal (Mrs.) Vs. State of Rajasthan [(2003) 3 SCC 485] this Court categorically held that there was no scope of regularization unless the appointment was made on a regular basis.
69. Yet again recently in Ramakrishna Kamat & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. [JT 2003 (2) SC 88], this Court rejected a similar plea for regularization of services stating :Page 13 of 15 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Jul 28 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 28 21:40:32 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16644/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2025 undefined "...We repeatedly asked the learned counsel for the appellants on what basis or foundation in law the appellants made their claim for regularization and under what rules their recruitment was made so as to govern their service conditions. They were not in a position to answer except saying that the appellants have been working for quite some time in various schools started pursuant to resolutions passed by zilla parishads in view of the government orders and that their cases need to be considered sympathetically. It is clear from the order of the learned single judge and looking to the very directions given a very sympathetic view was taken. We do not find it either just or proper to show any further sympathy in the given facts and circumstances of the case. While being sympathetic to the persons who come before the court the courts cannot at the same time be unsympathetic to the large number of eligible persons waiting for a long time in a long queue seeking employment..."
6.5 In view of above, I am of the view that the present petition is thoroughly meritless and it can be considered as an attempt to misuse the process of law by the petitioner. Hence, the present petition is required to be dismissed.
Page 14 of 15 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Jul 28 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 28 21:40:32 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16644/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2025 undefined
7. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. Notice stands discharged.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J) DIWAKAR SHUKLA Page 15 of 15 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Jul 28 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 28 21:40:32 IST 2025