Gujarat High Court
Rajnikant Lavjibhai Chaudhari vs Principal District Judge- Mehsana on 2 July, 2025
Author: Nikhil S. Kariel
Bench: Nikhil S. Kariel
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/29015/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 29015 of 2007
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==========================================================
RAJNIKANT LAVJIBHAI CHAUDHARI & ORS.
Versus
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE- MEHSANA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
ADVOCATE NOTICE NOT RECD BACK for the Petitioner(s) No. 2,3
ADVOCATE NOTICE SERVED for the Petitioner(s) No. 4
MR R G CHAUDHARY(6428) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
DELETED for the Respondent(s) No. 9
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 21
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 15,16,17,18,20,23,24,25,4
VIKAS V NAIR(7444) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
LAW OFFICER BRANCH(420) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
MR ANAND L SHARMA(1714) for the Respondent(s) No. 10,12,13,14,3,7
MR PR NANAVATI(508) for the Respondent(s) No. 15,16,17,18,20,23
MR VAIBHAV A VYAS(2896) for the Respondent(s) No. 19,22,5,8
MR. SAHIL M SHAH(6318) for the Respondent(s) No. 6
MS HARSHAL N PANDYA(3141) for the Respondent(s) No. 11
MS PRACHI UPADHYAY(5857) for the Respondent(s) No. 22,5,8
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL
Date : 02/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned advocate Mr.R.G.Chaudhary appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned advocate Mr.Vikas Nair appearing on behalf of respondents no.1 and 2, learned advocate Mr.P.R.Nanavaty appearing on behalf of Page 1 of 29 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Sat Jul 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:13:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/29015/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025 undefined respondents no.15, 17, 18, 20 and 23, learned advocate Mr.Sahil Shah appearing on behalf of respondent no.6, learned advocate Mr.Vaibhav Vyas with learned advocate Ms.Prachi Upadhya appearing on behalf of respondents no. 5, 8, 19 and 22, learned advocate Ms.Harshal Pandya appearing on behalf of respondent no.11 and learned advocate Ms.Himanshi Balodi for learned advocate Mr.Anand Sharma appearing on behalf of respondents no.3, 7, 10, 12, 13 and 14.
2. The present petition had been preferred in the year 2007 inter alia challenging orders dated 20.12.2006 and 11.01.2007 as being arbitrary, illegal etc. and in defiance of an order passed by a learned Coordinate Bench in the first round of litigation being Special Civil Application No.17627/2006 and allied matters.
2.1. It would appear that when the petition had been taken up for the first time, the counsel appearing for the District Judge, Mehsana had submitted to this Court that because of some misconception, the District Judge did not pass the order and whereas, it was submitted that appropriate order shall be passed and communicated to the petitioner and whereas, for such an action, time was granted. The same being recorded in Page 2 of 29 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Sat Jul 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:13:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/29015/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025 undefined order of this Court dated 23.11.2007.
2.2. It would appear that pursuant to the said undertaking, the then Principal District Judge, Mehsana had passed an order dated 07.12.2007 in respect of representation preferred by the petitioners and whereas, vide the above referred order, the representations had been directed to be filed as no substance was found therein. At the outset, it requires to be mentioned here that order dated 07.12.2007 being the impugned order, has not been challenged in the present petition at all.
2.3. Be that as it may, it would appear that the entire petition is completely misconceived inasmuch as while there appears to be two different advertisements issued by the establishment of the District Court, Mehsana for the post of Assistant (Junior Clerk) and whereas, the petitioner has two different sets of grievances as regards both the selection processes and whereas, unfortunately, it appears that both the set of grievances have been mixed up in the present petition, leading to the facts being so much jumbled up that this Court at its wits' end to segregate the facts and grievance of the petitioner as relatable to the different sets of selection Page 3 of 29 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Sat Jul 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:13:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/29015/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025 undefined process. As it is, it would appear from the petition that reference is made only to the earlier advertisement, whereas grounds are relatable to the later advertisement.
3. To clarify, it appears that the District Court, Mehsana had published its first advertisement vide outward no.B.4/24/Admin/1431/2004 in a daily news paper calling for applications to reach the establishment of the District Court by the 31.08.2004. The criteria prescribed being S.S.C. or equivalent and having speed of 30 words per minute in English and 25 words per minute in Gujarati language and having knowledge of computer. The age criteria was between 18 to 25.
3.1. From the documents, this Court has gathered that a total of 116 candidates had been selected in the said selection process and whereas, the list had been sent for approval to the High Court and whereas, vide a communication dated 21.06.2005, the High Court had directed the approval of the only one person namely Shri S.R.Raval who was figuring at sr.no.4 in the list whereas, the remaining list of 115 candidates had been disapproved i.e. the remaining list was directed to be scraped. It appears that the petitioner had been Page 4 of 29 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Sat Jul 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:13:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/29015/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025 undefined selected in the said selection process and was part of the list of 115 candidates.
3.2. It further appears that the establishment of the District Court, Mehsana had published another advertisement for selection to the post of Assistant (Junior Clerk) vide advertisement no.B.4/24/Admin/1537/2005 and whereas, the conditions prescribed were same as in the earlier advertisement and whereas, a list of instructions was also published, as could be observed from the advertisement which has been annexed with an affidavit filed by respondents no.3, 7, 10, 12 and 14.
3.3. It appears that the selection process envisaged was a written test and the candidates who had passed the said test would be taking a typing test and the candidates who had passed the typing test would give the oral interview and those who clear the oral interview would figure in the final select list. It would appear that the written test, insofar as the second advertisement was conducted on 31.07.2005, whereas the petitioner had failed to clear the written test, therefore, he was not entitled to participate in the typing test conducted on 13.08.2005 or the later oral interview conducted on Page 5 of 29 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Sat Jul 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:13:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/29015/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025 undefined 15.08.2005. The substantive grievance of the petitioner being against the petitioner failing in the written test in the second advertisement.
3.4. It would appear in this regard that the grievances of the petitioner qua both the selection process have been mixed up and whereas, the petitioner appears to claim that though his name figured in the first select list, yet, in the second select list his name disappeared without any reason.
4. Be that as it may, now, the Court will consider the submissions made by learned advocate Mr.Chaudhary on behalf of the petitioner.
4.1. At the outset, learned advocate would submit that the respondents are trying to mislead this Court by submitting that there were two different advertisements whereas, according to learned advocate, the advertisement in question was a common advertisement, of which a draft was annexed with the petition. Learned advocate would submit that insofar as a candidate namely Shri S.R.Raval, he did not have any experience whatsoever in typing and yet, the said candidate had been selected whereas, the petitioner, during the period Page 6 of 29 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Sat Jul 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:13:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/29015/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025 undefined when the selection process had taken place, was working in the establishment of the District Court as a Stenographer on ad-hoc basis, had not been selected.
4.2. It is submitted that the selection process did not figure any procedure whatsoever and furthermore, it is submitted more particularly relying upon paragraph no.10 of order dated 07.12.2007 that even typing test has not been conducted at all. Learned advocate would further refer as regards qualifications of certain candidates and would submit that the candidates though not possessing relevant qualifications, had been selected and whereas, the petitioner though qualified had not been selected. Reference is particularly made to the case of one Desai Virambhai Ajmalbhai submitting that the said person who had been selected as an Assistant was admittedly overage on the date of selection, yet, the said candidate had been selected, whereas, the petitioner is treated to have been failed in written examination.
4.3. Learned advocate Mr.Chaudhary would further rely upon circular of the State Government dated 15.07.1998 submitting that the respondents did not follow the principles Page 7 of 29 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Sat Jul 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:13:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/29015/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025 undefined as mentioned in the said circular i.e. with regard to maintaining a ratio between the direct recruitees and promotees.
4.4. Learned advocate would further rely upon two communications issued by the High Court dated 21.06.2005 and 22.09.2005 and would submit that vide the former communication while list of 115 candidates had been disapproved, vide the later communication a list of 222 candidates had been approved which list figured around 66 persons from the first list. Learned advocate would submit that such 66 persons from the earlier list had been brought in the later list without following any due process and whereas, the candidature of the present petitioner had not been considered at all.
4.5. Learned advocate would, in support of his submission, relied upon the following decisions:-
i. Decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Tej Prakash Pathak vs. Rajasthan High Court, reported in 2024 INSC 847 ii. Decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Page 8 of 29 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Sat Jul 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:13:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/29015/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025 undefined case of Dr.Tejas Mahasukhlal Tank vs. Gujarat Public Service Commission Thru. Chairman & Anr., reported in 2024 (2) GLH 326 iii. Decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Nutan Kumari vs. B.R.A.Bihar University and Ors., reported in 2023 (14) SCR 699 iv. Decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Ankita Thakur and Ors. vs. H.P.Staff Selection Commission and Ors., reported in 2023 (15) Scale 340 v. Decision of this Court in case of Kailash Nath Mishra vs. Chairman, Board of Governors, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel National Institute of Technology, dated 13.07.2023 in Special Civil Application No.13777/2022 vi. Decision of learned Coordinate Bench of this Court in case of Bhargavkumar Hasmukhbhai Sachaniya vs. Secretary, reported in 2022 (1) GLH 41 vii. Decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar vs. Monika, reported in 2024 INSC 911 Page 9 of 29 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Sat Jul 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:13:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/29015/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025 undefined viii. Decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Chief Personnel Officer vs. A. Nishanth George, reported in 2022 (11) SCC 678 ix. Decision of Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in case of Maruti Enterprise Through Authorized Partner Jigneshbhai Bharatbhai Tarpara vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2020 JX (Guj) 78
5. As against the same, the present petition has been vehemently opposed by learned advocate Mr.Vikas Nair on behalf of the District Court and the High Court. 5.1. It is submitted by learned advocate Mr.Nair that while the petition raises various allegations in a composite manner, it would appear that petition is with regard to two separate advertisements and whereas, it is submitted that the petitioner, having failed in the written test conducted in the second advertisement, has now questioned the selection process itself. Learned advocate would submit that as such, no material whatsoever has been produced by the petitioner to substantiate any of his allegations.
Page 10 of 29 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Sat Jul 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:13:55 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/29015/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025 undefined 5.2. It is submitted that as far as the first advertisement goes, while a list of 116 candidates had been prepared, the same had been scraped except for one candidate, and whereas, in the later advertisement, a list of 222 candidates had been prepared and whereas, except for one candidate, the entire list had been notified. Learned advocate would submit that no cause accrues in favour of the petitioner more particularly having failed in the written test and whereas, it is too late in the day for the petitioner now to complaint about his non-selection without any material whatsoever and therefore, it is submitted that, this Court may reject the petition.
6. This petition is also vehemently objected to by learned advocate Mr.P.R.Nanavaty, learned advocate Mr.Sahil Shah, learned advocate Ms.Prachi Upadhyay, learned advocate Ms.Harshal Pandya and learned advocate Ms.Himanshi Balodi on behalf of the private respondents.
6.1. Learned advocates would submit that as such, no irregularity was committed at any point of time in the selection process. It is submitted that the respondents are all selectees of the second selection process and whereas, the Page 11 of 29 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Sat Jul 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:13:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/29015/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025 undefined private respondents having served for almost two decades, most of them have now been promoted. It is submitted that as such, the petition itself may not be entertained by this Court as in addition to there being no reason for questioning the selection of the private respondents, and for the reason that any orders disturbing the selection list will cause uncalled prejudice and hardship to the private respondents who are diligently and sincerely discharging duties in the establishment of the District Court.
6.2. Thus submitting, the private respondents would request that this Court may not entertain the writ petition.
7. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties, to this Court, it would appear that the petition is not required to be entertained for more than one reason. 7.1. The first reason, to this Court for non-entertaining the writ petition, is the fact that the petitioner has not questioned the main impugned order itself. As noticed by this Court, while the prayers are with regard to challenging orders dated 20.12.2006 and 11.01.2007, it also appears that at the first hearing itself, this Court had been informed by the counsel for Page 12 of 29 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Sat Jul 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:13:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/29015/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025 undefined the respondents no.1 and 2 that the respondent no.1 would be passing a fresh order and whereas, it is in context of such a submission that the order dated 07.12.2007 had been passed by the then Principal District Judge, Mehsana. The said order also appears to have been placed on record by way of amendment. It would appear that the said order has not been challenged independently by amending the petition or by any other mode whatsoever. True it is that in writ jurisdiction, discretion available to this Court is not circumscribed by the prayers sought for, yet, to this Court, it would appear that in cases like the present, where there is an inter-se dispute with regard to the selection, the petitioner ought to have been extremely vigilant and should have challenged the order dated 07.12.2007 at the first available instance. The said observation gets magnified in view of the fact that order dated 07.12.2007 is a detailed reasoned order, where each and ever contention / allegation of the petitioner in his representation to the Principal District Judge has been specifically dealt with. In absence of pleadings with regard to the findings of the order dated 07.12.2007 and in absence of a specific prayer questioning the same, to this Court, it would appear that the petition is itself without any substratum whatsoever. Page 13 of 29 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Sat Jul 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:13:55 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/29015/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025 undefined 7.2. The petition also requires to be rejected on a different count i.e. on the count that even a limited direction passed in favour of the petitioner would lead to catastrophic consequences upon the private respondents. This Court hastens to clarify that while this Court has not been presented with any material whatsoever, on the basis of which, this Court could have interfered even in a limited manner, yet, as of now, to this Court, it would appear that interfering in this petition would cause grave prejudice to the private respondents who have been selected and appointed as far as back in the year 2005 itself. After twenty years of service when most of the private respondents have been promoted, to even cast a passing aspersion on their selection would, in the considered opinion of this Court, be an exercise which would be completely uncalled for. While this Court is clear that in circumstances which do warrant interference namely in cases of fraud etc., long time of appointment would not give any premium to a party, yet, in the present case, the long time which has elapsed, dissuades this Court from interfering in the present petition.
7.3. An additional aspect in this regard being the fact that Page 14 of 29 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Sat Jul 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:13:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/29015/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025 undefined the selection which had started vide advertisement dated 24.06.2005 had completed upon the High Court approving list of 221 candidates out of the list of 222 candidates vide communicated dated 22.09.2005. The petitioner who had appeared for the selection as far as the second advertisement is concerned, had failed in the written examination conducted on 31.07.2005, had preferred the first petition in the year 2006 being Special Civil Applications No.17627/2006, 17658- 17660/2006 and whereas, it is in this petition that learned Coordinate Bench had passed order dated 07.11.2006 for considering the representation of the present petitioner. It would thus appear that the petitioner had, for the first time, approached this Court in the year 2006, to be specific, somewhere in the month of October - November, 2006 questioning the selection process, which selection process as far as the petitioner is concerned, had come to an end upon the petitioner failing in the written examination on 31.07.2005. The Principal District Judge, pursuant to the order of learned Coordinate Bench, had rejected the representations on 20.12.2006 and 11.01.2006 and whereas, the present petition had been preferred approximately 11 months thereafter in the month of November, 2007. Thus, by Page 15 of 29 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Sat Jul 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:13:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/29015/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025 undefined the time the present petition had been preferred, all the private respondents and other selectees who had joined, were already appointed and whereas, to this Court, it would appear that, under such circumstances, in the year 2025 i.e. two decades after the appointment of the private respondents, this Court would be loath to interfere in the such a kind of petition.
8. Now, coming to the merits of the matter, while it is contended by learned advocate Mr.Chaudhary that there was only one single examination, it would appear that the petitioner has completely missed out on the main issue i.e. there were two different advertisements. While a lame submission has been attempted to be made before this Court by the learned advocate that what has been annexed at Annexure-A to this petition is a draft of the advertisement, the averments made in the petition do not support such a submission. In the petition it is averred at para - 3.2 as reproduced below:-
"3.2. The petitioners submit that the respondent has issued an advertisement in the Prabhat News Paper, inviting applications for filing the post of junior clerk. The petitioners crave leave to annex the copy of the advertisement issued by the respondent Page 16 of 29 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Sat Jul 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:13:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/29015/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025 undefined an ANNEXURE-A to the petition memo. "
8.1. The above does not in any manner reveal that what has been annexed in the petition is a draft. As such, a perusal of the said advertisement reveals that the same was published somewhere before August, 2004 since the last date for the application was 31.08.2004. It also appears perusing the communication dated 21.06.2005 which has been annexed by the petitioner as well as the respondents no.1 and 2 herewith that pursuant to the advertisement issued in the year 2004 for the post of Assistant (Junior Clerk), a list of 116 candidates had been prepared and whereas, out of the said list, only one candidate had been approved by the High Court whereas, remaining 115 candidates had been disapproved. It would further appear basis a list of 116 candidates which is annexed with the affidavit-in-rejoinder that the petitioner figured in the first list i.e. pursuant to the advertisement of the year 2004 and whereas, except for one person, the entire list of 116 candidates had been scraped.
8.2. There is something to be said about the candidate whose name had been approved, but, later on about that. Page 17 of 29 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Sat Jul 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:13:55 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/29015/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025 undefined 8.3. It would further appear that the establishment of the District Court, Mehsana, as noticed hereinabove, had issued another advertisement where the last date for receiving application was 08.07.2005 for the post of Assistant (Junior Clerk) and as per the reply, the petitioner had failed in the written examination which had been conducted on 31.07.2005. The case of the petitioner ended with the said failure. Unfortunately, this being the case, what is now being attempted to be submitted before this Court is that while a list of 222 candidates had been prepared after the scraping of 116 candidates and whereas, the second list contained a list of 66 candidates whose names figured in the first 116 and whereas, the said 66 candidates were included in the list of 222, without following any procedure at all. To this Court, it would appear that such a submission is not made on the basis of any supporting material.
8.4. In this regard, it would be relevant to now go back to the case of the one candidate whose name had been approved in the first list. A perusal of the communication dated 21.06.2005 by the then Registrar Inspection, Gujarat High Court reveals that while the establishment of the District Court, Mehsana Page 18 of 29 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Sat Jul 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:13:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/29015/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025 undefined had sent a list of 116 candidates, upon verification, the High Court had found that one candidate namely Shri S.R.Raval i.e. at Sr.No.4 in the merit list had secured 40% marks in the written test and had also secured 63 marks i.e. above 40% marks in the typing test and it is only the said candidate who had qualified. From the said communication, it is apparent that while the establishment of the District Court may have forwarded a list, it is not that such list had been approved by the establishment of the High Court on asking. The fact that only one candidate out of 116 candidates had been approved for appointment and remaining 115 candidates' list had been scraped is enough proof of the fact that the list of candidates had been scrutinized threadbare at the level of High Court and there cannot be any allegation that in the later list, the establishment of the District Court, Mehsana had included 66 candidates without following any procedure and whereas, the same had not come to the notice of the High Court. 8.5. Again, while the petitioner alleges that one candidate namely Shri S.R.Raval did not have any typing experience, it appears that it is the said candidate who was the only person whose name had been approved by the High Court more Page 19 of 29 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Sat Jul 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:13:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/29015/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025 undefined particularly the candidate having secured more than minimum requirement in the written test as well as in the typing test. No material whatsoever is produced on record in support of the submission that the said candidate did not have any typing experience and whereas, upon the learned advocate being directed to show appropriate material, it is submitted by learned advocate that since he had made allegations, it would be for the High Court or the District Court to produce material to show that the said candidate had enough typing experience.
8.6. To this Court, the petitioner is turning the rules of evidence, on its head. To this Court, it would appear that it is a well settled position that the burden of making good an allegation is on the person who makes such an allegation and only upon appropriate material being produced, would the onus shift upon the other party to disprove the same. Merely by making allegation that a candidate does not have typing experience and expecting the establishment of the High Court or the District Court to disprove the same, is not a concept which is, to this Court, in accordance with law. In any case, as noticed in communication dated 21.06.2005, it is the said Page 20 of 29 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Sat Jul 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:13:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/29015/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025 undefined candidate who had secured more than sufficient marks and it was that candidate only out of the list of 116 candidates, whose name had been approved by the High Court. 8.7. Insofar as the allegation that around 66 persons whose name figured in the list of 115 which had been scraped having figured in the later list of 222, except for a bare averment that the same is done without following any procedure, to this Court, it does not appear that any material whatsoever has been produced. As a matter of fact, a very specific averment has been made in the affidavits filed on behalf of the District Court as well as the High Court that list of 222 candidates had been prepared after conducting written test on 31.07.2005, typing test and oral interview being conducted on 13.08.2005 to 15.08.2005. It also appears that out of the list of 222 candidates sent for approval to the High Court, the list had been scraped insofar as one candidate and whereas, from the material placed on record, it would appear that a detailed exercise had been conducted which had received approval of the then Hon'ble the Chief Justice and the then Unit Judge as regards scraping the name of one candidate. To this Court, it would appear that the level of examination where even for Page 21 of 29 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Sat Jul 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:13:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/29015/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025 undefined scraping of one candidate from a list of 222 having been examined threadbare, upto the level of Hon'ble the Chief Justice, would be enough material to reject the allegation on behalf of the petitioner that 66 candidates out of 115 candidates i.e. the scraped list had figured without any kind of procedure whatsoever.
8.8. While the petition contains certain allegations with regard to certain candidates, no material whatsoever has been produced to show that the said candidates are suffering from any kind of disabilities. One of the allegations being that some candidates did not have GCC certificates and whereas, in the affidavit-in-reply, it is very specifically averred by the respondents that having GCC certificate is not a pre-condition for selection, rather, having adequate marks in the typing test is the condition for selection.
8.9. Learned advocate Mr.Chaudhary had also very vehemently submitted with regard to para-10 of the impugned order dated 07.12.2007 that no typing test was conducted for selection of the list of 222 candidates and whereas, it was submitted that para-10 contains an admission in that regard. A perusal of para-10, to this Court, reveals otherwise. After Page 22 of 29 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Sat Jul 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:13:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/29015/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025 undefined approximately two years of appointment, since one of the allegations was that the candidates did not have enough typing experience, the then Principal District Judge has observed that 56 candidates have joined services before two years and till date, not a single complaint is received from any Judicial Officer or from any Head of a Branch and whereas, it is under such circumstances, that the Principal District Judge had though it proper not to take a typing test of the candidates. It would appear in this regard that the said typing test, which is referred is post appointment and whereas, the allegation of the petitioner is that before appointment, some private respondents did not possess adequate typing experience. To this Court, nothing turns on observations made by the Principal District Judge at para-10.
9. Insofar as the judgments relied upon by learned advocate for the petitioner, to this Court, it would appear that none of the judgments would in any manner whatsoever advance the cause of the petition more particularly since it would appear to this Court that the judgments have been referred completely out of the context more particularly the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court in Page 23 of 29 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Sat Jul 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:13:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/29015/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025 undefined the judgments referred to do not appear to be having any relevance to the context in hand.
9.1. In case of Tej Prakash Pathak (supra), the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is relied upon to submit that recruitment process commences from the issuance of advertisement and ends with the filling up of the vacancies and the eligibility criteria notified cannot be changed midway through the recruitment process. To this Court, however liberally it would construe the submissions made by learned advocate for the petitioner and however liberally it would read the averments made in the petition as well as in the rejoinder, there does not appear to be any contention, which could be even obliquely meant to mean that the respondents had changed the selection criteria midway through the selection process. The allegation being that some of the candidates may not have the requisite qualification for being appointed and whereas, the petitioner who, according to the petitioner, is well qualified having not been appointed, would not automatically translate to mean that the respondents had changed the criteria for selection midway. 9.2. Insofar as the decision of this Court in case of Dr.Tejas Page 24 of 29 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Sat Jul 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:13:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/29015/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025 undefined Mahasukhlal Tank (supra) is concerned, the law laid down by this Court being that rules applying to recruitment process have to remain the same till conclusion of the process and all candidates have to be governed by same set of rules and criteria throughout and it is not permissible to change the rules in the midway, would be covered by the observations of this Court hereinabove as regards the non-applicability of the decision in case of Tej Prakash Pathak (supra). 9.3. In case of Nutan Kumari (supra), the law laid down being that once process of selection commences, criteria prescribed in advertisement for conducting selection process of eligible candidates cannot be altered, would also be covered by the observations hereinabove in case of Tej Prakash Pathak (supra).
9.4. In case of Ankita Thakur and Ors. (supra), the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court being relied upon being the same as in the earlier decisions, the observations of this Court would apply thereto also.
9.5. Insofar as the case of Kailash Nath Mishra (supra) is concerned, the said decision of the learned Coordinate Bench Page 25 of 29 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Sat Jul 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:13:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/29015/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025 undefined is relied upon to submit that the petitioner cannot be once again put to hardship by applying afresh and asking him to undergo process of selection for no fault of his on account of the cancellation of advertisement, appears to be a proposition which would not have any relevance whatsoever to the facts of the present case.
9.6. Furthermore, in case of Bhargavkumar Hasmukhbhai Sachaniya (supra), a learned Coordinate Bench has held that respondent authorities could not have rejected the candidature of the petitioner in a recruitment without verification of the nature of work assigned to the petitioner as a Deputy Section Officer in Nazir Department of High Court and whereas, the respondent authorities could not have ignored certificate issued by the Registrar General. The said law being quoted to submit that the experience of the petitioner as a Stenographer on ad-hoc basis in the establishment of the District Court does not appear to have been considered, is also, to this Court, completely irrelevant to the facts of the case since the petitioner's candidature has not been rejected upon the experience of the petitioner not being considered as being adequate, rather the petitioner's Page 26 of 29 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Sat Jul 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:13:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/29015/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025 undefined candidature had been rejected since the petitioner failed in the written examination.
9.7. In case of Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar (supra), the decision is relied upon to contend that experience gained in earlier appointment should be given adequate weightage and whereas, the observations of this Court hereinabove in case of Bhargavkumar Hasmukhbhai Sachaniya (supra) would cover the said aspect also.
9.8. In case of Chief Personnel Officer (supra), the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court being with regard to a scheme namely the LARSGESS Scheme, to this Court, does not have any relevance whatsoever to the facts of the present case.
9.9. The observations of this Court in case of Maruti Enterprise Through Authorized Partner Jigneshbhai Bharatbhai Tarpara (supra) with regard to a party having chosen to avail remedy of approaching this Court by a writ jurisdiction and the Court having entertained the petition had no authority to thereafter enter into the merits of the case and Page 27 of 29 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Sat Jul 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:13:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/29015/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025 undefined pass any order in the matter when the case was sub-judice the authority had no business to enter into the merits of the case, is relied upon to submit that some documents with regard to the selection process had been burnt when the present writ petition was under consideration. This Court fails to understand and appreciate the relevance of such a submission. It is not the case of the petitioner that any of the documents, even if they have burned, non-presence of the same had prejudiced the petitioner in any manner whatsoever. It is not the case of the petitioner that in any of the affidavits-in-reply the official respondents have contended that they would not be able to meet with the allegations made by the petitioner in the writ petition on account of papers with regard to the selection process not being available. Thus, the submission made by the petitioner being completely irrelevant, does not require any kind of finding from this Court.
10. Having observed as above, to this Court, it would appear that the present petition is out and out misconceived inasmuch as though the petitioner is aggrieved by his non- selection qua the second advertisement, averments made in Page 28 of 29 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Sat Jul 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:13:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/29015/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025 undefined the petition as well as the documents annexed thereto are with regard to the earlier advertisement. There is no clarification whatsoever in the writ petition as regards the grievance of the petitioner with regard to second advertisement except for broad allegations being made against the lack of qualifications of some of the candidates. Furthermore, various allegations are being attempted to be made in the affidavit-in-rejoinder filed in the year 2024 which, though this Court has looked into, to this Court, is of no consequence whatsoever.
11. Having regard to the above observations, discussion and findings, to this Court, the present petition being absolutely merit-less, is disposed of as rejected.
(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J) Bhoomi Page 29 of 29 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Sat Jul 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:13:55 IST 2025