Gujarat High Court
Devangkumar Jagdishbhai Barevadiya vs State Of Gujarat on 25 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16120/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16120 of 2017
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
DEVANGKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI BAREVADIYA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VICKY B MEHTA(5422) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4,5
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 25/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This petition is filed for the following reliefs.
"18(a) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate write order or direction in the nature of mandamus by holding that the petitioner is entitled to get appointment on the post of Lok Rakshak (unarmed) pursuant to his name in the waiting list at sr.no. 31 and further be pleased to direct the respondents to grant appointment on the post of Lok Rakshak (unarmed).
(b) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction Page 1 of 10 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Jul 28 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 28 22:01:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16120/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined in the nature of mandamus by directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for the post of Lok Rakshak (unarmed).
(c) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate rate, order or direction in the nature of mandamus by quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 12.01.2016 and the order dated 19.03/2016 passed by the respondent no.4."
2. The facts leading to filing of this petition are that pursuant to the advertisement being no.1/2007 published by the respondent no.2 for the recruitment of Low Rakshak (unarmed), the petitioner was selected and his name was at serial number 31 in the waiting list. After the petitioner got selected, the respondent no.4 by communication dated 19.01.2010, informed the DSP of Surendranagar district to carry out police verification of the candidates who are selected for Rajkot region. The notification of the respondent no.2 was issued in the year 2007 and the select list and waiting list were published in the year 2009. As the petitioner had shifted to London during these two years for further studies, he was not aware that he is selected by notification dated 30.01.2009.
Page 2 of 10 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Jul 28 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 28 22:01:05 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16120/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined 2.1. It is stated that the notice dated 27.03.2010 issued by the respondent no.4 was never served on the petitioner or the family member of the petitioner. When the petitioner returned back to India on 24.06.2013, he came to know pursuant to the information sought by him under the Right to Information Act that his name was in the waiting list. He was also informed that he was selected for Rajkot region by letter dated 20.06.2014 and further information can be gathered from respondent no.4.
2.2 It is stated that the petitioner submitted an application on 30.04.2015 to the respondent no.3 pointing out the above aspect and requested him to grant appointment on the post of Lok Rakshak. Again on 26.05.2015, the petitioner requested the respondent no.2 to grant him appointment on the post of Lok Rakshak. By letter dated 30.06.2015, the petitioner was informed to satisfy the department with regards his study and stay in London and to produce all the documents relating to his studies in London so that the case of the petitioner could be considered accordingly. By letter dated 19.03.2016, the petitioner was informed that the case of the petitioner for grant of appointment for the post of Lok Rakshak cannot be considered in view of the fact that one candidate from the second waiting list namely Virendrasinh Page 3 of 10 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Jul 28 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 28 22:01:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16120/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined Dashrathsinh Zala is already granted appointment in place of the petitioner. Though several representations were made by the petitioner to the respondent, on 12.01.2016, the respondent no.4 rejected the application of the petitioner. From the information sought under the Right to Information Act, the petitioner came to know that on 29.03.2010, the concerned police officer from Limdi Police Station, District Surendranagar had went to the house of the petitioner wherein they found no one present in the house of the petitioner. Therefore, the present petition.
3. Heard learned advocates for the parties. 3.1 Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the name of the petitioner appeared at serial number 31 in the waiting list and though he was already selected for the post of Lok Rakshak (unarmed), he could not report only on account of the fact that he was pursuing his studies at London from September 2009 till 24.06.2013 and he was not aware regarding his name being selected. It is submitted that Virendrasingh Dashrathsingh Zala is granted appointment though he is at serial number 152 in the merit list and therefore the action of the respondent is discriminatory. That the statement dated 29.03.2010 recorded by the police officer Page 4 of 10 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Jul 28 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 28 22:01:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16120/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined of Limdi Police Station does not create any confidence because the petitioner was at London but his family members were very much residing at Limdi and any correspondence or notice, if sent to the family members of the petitioner would have reached to them. There is no fault on the part of the petitioner as this is a case of non communication to the petitioner. He therefore submitted that the action of the respondent in granting appointment to some other candidate namely, Virendrasingh Dashrathsingh Zala is arbitrary and therefore, this petition is required to be allowed
4. Per contra, learned AGP appearing for the respondents, has submitted that it is correct that the petitioner came to be selected by notification of result dated 31.1.2009 for the post of Lok Rakshak (unarmed) where the name of the petitioner was figured in the merit list at serial no.31. Therefore, the petitioner was intimated to produce all the documents and remain present on 19.1.2010. However, the petitioner did not respond. Thereafter, a notice came to be issued by Communication dated 23.3.2010 which was sent by RPAD to the petitioner. However, the said notice returned back to the office on 27.3.2010 with an endorsement of the postman that the article has been returned with a note `left' and it was signed by the postman Limdi. The notice came to Page 5 of 10 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Jul 28 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 28 22:01:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16120/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined be issued on the address which was mentioned by the petitioner in the application form. Thereafter, the intimation to the petitioner to remain present on 23.01.2010 was informed to the petitioner through Limdi Police Station. However, the petitioner failed to remain present. The said notice came back. Though the police constable personally went to the address of the petitioner on the address mentioned in the application form, as it was found that nobody is residing in the place of address provided in the application, the statement of the neighbor was taken that the petitioner had went abroad and the parents of the petitioner had went to the local village. Even in the written statement submitted to the Deputy Commissioner of Police on 6.10.2015, it has been stated by the petitioner that when the notice was issued, for that specific period the petitioner was not in India and he went to London. Therefore, she submitted that when all the efforts failed to communicate to the petitioner, the respondent had no other alternative, but to appoint the person from the waiting list. It is submitted that after approximately 4 years of returning back from London, the petitioner is seeking the appointment on the said post on which already another person is appointed. She therefore prays to dismiss this petition.
Page 6 of 10 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Jul 28 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 28 22:01:05 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16120/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined
5. I have heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the material on record.
5.1 It transpires that the petitioner was selected as
Lok Rakshak (unarmed) by notification of result dated
30.01.2009. Therefore, the office of the Deputy Police
Commissioner Rajkot City, Rajkot informed the
Superintendent of Police,
Bhavnagar/Jamnagar/Surendranagar/Amreli/Rajkot Rural vide
letter dated 19.01.2010 to intimate the seven persons whose names are mentioned therein to remain present with the documents mentioned. Thereafter vide letter dated 23.01.2010 again the Police Commissioner Office, Rajkot City sent a fax message to the Superintendent of Police Surendranagar/ Amreli/Bhavnagar/Rajkot Rural intimating that the persons mentioned at serial number three and seven have not turned up with the original documents and therefore they be informed accordingly. The person at sr.no.3 is the petitioner herein. Thereafter, vide letter dated 23.03.2010 again the Deputy Police Commissioner's Office, Rajkot City, Rajkot sent a notice to the petitioner herein by registered post and informing the said selection and to remain present with the original documents. The same was sent by RPAD which returned on 27.03.2010 with the endorsement `left' made by Page 7 of 10 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Jul 28 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 28 22:01:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16120/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined the postman. The message dated 23.03.2010 was sent by the police constable also which can be seen from the record who had made an endorsement that as the said person-the petitioner herein was not present at his residence and none was found at his residence, the statement of neighbor Yuvrajsinh Pratapsinh Solanki Limdi was taken who had mentioned that the said person was residing at London since a long time and therefore the said note is returned without being served. It can be seen from the record that the said letters were sent to the address mentioned in the application form and therefore no fault on the part of the respondents can be found. After making all the efforts to serve the petitioner and intimate him about his selection and remain present with the documents, when the petitioner did not turn up for long time, the respondents had given the opportunity to some person who was in the waiting list.
5.2 One more fact which is required to be considered is that selection list is of the year 2009. The efforts were made by the respondents for three to four times. And thereafter the person who was in the waiting list was given the appointment. It can also be seen that when the petitioner came back from London after a period of about two years and gathered the information under the Right to Page 8 of 10 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Jul 28 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 28 22:01:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16120/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined Information Act. Even his own statement dated 6.10.2015 before the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone 1, Rajkot City, it can be found that the petitioner was not there in India and he went to London during the said period. The fact remains that the said statement was recorded in the year 2015 and this petition is filed after a period of two years thereafter. Further, it can be seen from the record that the communication of rejecting the representation of the petitioner was made on 19.03.2016 and 12.01.2016 and the present petition is filed on 30.6.2017. Therefore, even after the petitioner came from London and he wrote his communication with the respondent authorities and he was given the reply in the year 2016 and there is a delay of more than one year in filing this petition. 5.3 In view of all the above facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the respondents action of appointing the other person on the post is bad and illegal. The petitioner was not vigilant towards his rights and he did not take any steps during his visit to London to keep the track of the result and the communications from the respondent authorities. In view of the above circumstances, when the petitioner himself is not vigilant and the respondents have taken all steps within their purview to serve the petitioner Page 9 of 10 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Jul 28 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 28 22:01:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16120/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined and intimate him about his selection but failed to do so and thereafter after making all attempts of serving the petitioner, the respondents had no alternative but to appoint another person on the post. Therefore, this petition is required to be dismissed and accordingly, dismissed. Notice/Rule is discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J) SRILATHA Page 10 of 10 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Jul 28 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 28 22:01:05 IST 2025