Darpanaben Chandubhai Chaudhary vs Commissioner Of Schools

Gujarat High Court

Darpanaben Chandubhai Chaudhary vs Commissioner Of Schools on 18 November, 2025

                                                                                                               NEUTRAL CITATION




                           C/SCA/13800/2018                                    JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025

                                                                                                                undefined




                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                              R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13800 of 2018

                      FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

                      HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
                      =============================================

                                  Approved for Reporting                      Yes          No
                                                                                            √
                      =============================================
                                       DARPANABEN CHANDUBHAI CHAUDHARY
                                                     Versus
                                         COMMISSIONER OF SCHOOLS & ORS.
                      =============================================
                      Appearance:
                      MS MAMTA R VYAS(994) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
                      MR SIDDHARTH RAMI, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
                      Respondent(s) No. 2
                      MR NILAY THAKAR FOR MR VH DESAI(298) for Respondent(s) No. 3,4
                      MS. RACHNA PASTORE(14483) for the Respondent(s) No. 5
                      NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 1
                      MR SWAPNESHWAR GOUTAM(9051) for the Respondent(s) No. 5
                      =============================================

                        CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT

                                                          Date : 18/11/2025
                                                          ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Siddharth Rami waives service of rule for respondent No.1 & 2. Learned advocate Mr.Nilay Thakar for learned advocate Mr.V.H.Desai waives service of rule for respondents Nos.3 and 4. Learned advocate Mr.Swapneshwar Goutam waives service of rule for respondent No.5.

2. With the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the present petition is taken up for hearing today.

NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13800/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined

3. Heard learned advocate Ms.Mamta Vyas for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Siddharth Rami for the State respondents, learned advocate Mr.Nilay Thakar for respondents Nos.3 and 4 and learned advocate Mr.Swapneshwar Goutam for respondent No.5, at length.

4. The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking he following reliefs :

"(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and to hold and declare that the petitioner is entitled for getting the appointment pursuant to the interview process held on 20/10/2008 and further be pleased to direct the respondents to give appointment to the petitioner with effect from 20/10/2008 with all consequential benefits;

(B) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this Writ petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the District Education Officer to place the report of inquiry pursuant to the order passed dated 05/09.07/2014;

(C) Be pleased to pass such other and further relief as may be deemed just and proper by Your Lordships in the facts and circumstances of the case."

SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONER :

5. At the outset, learned advocate Ms.Vyas would state that despite there is an order passed by respondent No.2 - District Education Officer, Anand, dated 05/09.07.2014, to hold an inquiry in the matter, till date, no such inquiry either initiated and/or completed, as the case may be, and due to which, the petitioner approached this Court by way of the reliefs as prayed in the petition.

NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13800/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined 5.1 Learned advocate Ms.Vyas would state that petitioner applied for the post of Shikshan Sahayak (Gujarati - Sanskrit) in the secondary stream with respondent No. 3 herein. It is submitted that as per the record, the petitioner was more qualified than respondent No. 5 herein, but did not receive an interview call letter from respondent No.3 and, having not participated in the interview process, not got selected by respondent No.3.

5.2 Learned advocate Ms. Vyas would further state that having come to know that there was some irregularity committed by respondents Nos. 2 and 3 in sending her interview letter, initially, the petitioner approached respondent No.2 herein and made a grievance about the same in the year 2009/2010. It is submitted that pursuant to such complaint of the petitioner, at the given point of time, after holding a preliminary inquiry, respondent No.3, having found some substance in it, took a decision to hold a detailed inquiry vide its decision dated 05/09.07.2014, but then after, nothing has been done in this regards.

5.3 Learned advocate Ms.Vyas would submit that when respondent No. 2 herein arrived at a finding that there was some irregularity found in sending the interview letter to the petitioner and may be other eligible candidates, a detailed inquiry was proposed then, it was incumbent upon respondent No.2 to undertake such exercise at the earliest and having not done so, violated the fundamental rights of the petitioner to get an appointment with respondent No.2.

NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13800/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined 5.4 Learned advocate Ms.Vyas would further submit that it is not the case of the respondent authority that there was no substance in the grievance voiced by the petitioner, and as such, there is no plausible explanation coming forth from the side of respondent No.3 in regards to the complaint of the petitioner. It is submitted that even the appointment given to respondent No. 5 was ad-hoc basis, as per aforesaid order of respondent No.2.

5.5 Learned advocate Ms.Vyas would further submit that the husband of respondent No.5, working with respondent No.3, tried to give favour to respondent No.5, being his wife, in connivance with peon of respondent No.3, sent interview letter through post at incomplete address of the petitioner. So, on non-receipt of interview letter, petitioner could not made aware about the date of interview, thus, she could not attend the interview, resultantly not selected.

5.6 Lastly, learned advocate Ms.Vyas would respectfully submit that when a finding of fact recorded and there is subjective satisfaction recorded by respondent No.2 that a detailed inquiry in regards to the appointment of respondent No.5 requires to be undertaken, having not done so till date, it perpetuated the illegality committed by respondent No.3/4 appointed respondent No.5.

5.7 Making the above submissions, learned advocate Ms.Vyas would request this Court to allow the present petition.

NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13800/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS :

6. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Rami would submit that as per the preliminary inquiry so conducted by respondent No.2, there was some substance found in her complaint, and it was decided to hold a detailed inquiry in the matter. It is further submitted that there is no mala fide intention on the part of respondent No.2 in not conducting such inquiry, and as such, without taking further instructions in the matter, he is not in a position to make any statement in regards to reasons of not conducting/completing such detailed inquiry.

6.1 Nonetheless, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Rami would submit that if this Court ultimately finds substance in the grievance of the petitioner, respondent No.2 is not averse of not conducting such detailed inquiry.

6.2 Likewise, learned advocate Mr.Nilay Thakar appearing for respondents Nos.3 and 4 would submit that they have not committed any irregularity/illegality in sending the interview letter to the petitioner and whatever address was provided by the petitioner, on the same address, the interview letter was sent.

6.3 Learned advocate Mr.Nilay Thakar would further submit that prior to filing of this writ petition, the services of respondent No. 5 have been terminated, albeit on account of Page 5 of 12 Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Tue Nov 18 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 19 03:10:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13800/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined her misconduct committed during her employment with respondent No.3/4. Nonetheless, learned advocate Mr.Thakar is also candid in his submission that there is no personal interest of respondent Nos.3 and 4 in appointing respondent No.5.

6.4 Learned advocate Mr. Goutam appearing for respondent No.5, who happens to be the person selected on the post for which the petitioner applied, would vehemently oppose the present petition on several grounds as set out in her detailed affidavit-in-reply filed in this matter.

6.5 Learned advocate Mr. Goutam would respectfully submit that this Court should not entertain the present petition, having filed after about 10 years, inasmuch as, the process of appointment of respondent No.5 was already over in the year 2008 and present petition filed in year 2018. He submitted that when the petitioner slept over for more than 10 years and woke up from slumber, no relief can be granted in favour of the petitioner.

6.6 Learned advocate Mr. Goutam would further submit that even after getting the appointment, respondent No.5 was harassed by respondent No.4, i.e. the Principal of the school, against whom a criminal complaint came to be filed by respondent No.5. It is submitted that having grudge against respondent No.5, her services were terminated by respondent No.3/4, which is the subject matter of a substantive petition pending before this Court being Special Civil Application No.7696 of 2024.

NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13800/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined 6.7 Learned advocate Mr. Goutam would further submit that there is no case made out by the petitioner whereby it can be alleged against respondent No.5 that by getting some undue advantage in favour of her husband, who was working with respondent No.3/4, got the appointment. It is submitted that even it is not the case of respondent No.2 - District Education Officer, that any irregularity/illegality was committed by respondent No.5 in getting the appointment order from respondent No.3.

6.8 Making the above submissions, learned advocates appearing for the respective respondents would urge this Court that the present petition may be dismissed.

ANALYSIS :

7. Having heard learned counsels for the respective parties and after going through their respective pleadings and documentary evidence on record, following would emerge;

7.1 After holding a preliminary inquiry by respondent No.2 - District Education Officer, he found some substance in the grievance voiced by the petitioner, inasmuch as, he decided to hold a detailed inquiry in the matter, whereby he ordered that the appointment given to respondent No. 5 is subject to the outcome of such inquiry, meaning thereby, such appointment was an ad-hoc basis and not confirmed.

7.2 Further, despite the aforesaid observation and order passed by respondent No.2-DEO, no further steps taken by Page 7 of 12 Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Tue Nov 18 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 19 03:10:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13800/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined him in regards to hold detail inquiry, rather its not even initiated though contemplated as above. There is no justification coming forth from respondent No.1 & 2 in not initiation of such detail inquiry.

7.3 Unless and until, such detail inquiry would have been initiated and completed in just and fair manner, truth never surfaced on the record in regards to grievance of petitioner. When any serious allegation levelled against process of selection/appointment that too for the post of teacher, respondent-authority requires to take serious note of it and once, convince about such allegation, needs to find out truth in the matter.

POINT OF DETERMINATION :

8. After hearing and having analyzed the aforesaid facts of the present case, the short issue which arises for my consideration is :

"Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, can respondent No.2 be directed to hold and complete such detailed inquiry as decided by him vide its order/communication dated 05/09.07.2014 or not?"

9. It is true that the appointment in question was of the year 2008 and the present writ petition is filed in the year 2018. But at the same time, this Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that the petitioner was not wake up from slumber but, having come to know about the alleged irregularity/illegality committed by respondent No.3 in sending the interview letter Page 8 of 12 Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Tue Nov 18 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 19 03:10:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13800/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined to her with incomplete address thereby she could not attend interview, approached the respondent authority in the year 2009-2010 itself and having raised her grievance about allegedly not receiving the interview letter.

9.1 It can be seen that on receiving such complaint of petitioner, a preliminary inquiry contemplated/held by respondent No.2 wherein the aforesaid observation/finding arrived at by respondent No.2. Such a decision to hold a detailed inquiry was taken by respondent No.2 in the year 2014, that too on completion of preliminary inquiry. The record suggests that after such decision, it was expected from respondent No.2 to hold and complete the detailed inquiry, and thereby, everyone would know that whether any illegality/irregularity was in fact committed by respondent No.3/4 while sending the interview letter to all eligible candidates, including the petitioner.

9.2 The petitioner appears to have corresponded with the respondent authorities in the hope that one day, they will inquire and finds out the truth and let the petitioner know about the final outcome of such detailed inquiry. Finally, when the petitioner lost such hope to get justice from the respondent authority, she was constrained to approach this Court by way of the present writ petition.

10. Having considered the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, I do not agree with the Page 9 of 12 Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Tue Nov 18 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 19 03:10:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13800/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined arguments of learned advocate Mr. Goutam that this petition should be thrown out on the ground of delay/laches. According to my view, when any interview process is frustrated by any so-called irregularity/illegality by respondent No.3/4, and if the allegations made by the petitioner would find to be true/correct, the entire process of appointing respondent No.5 would be vitiated, inasmuch as, no fair opportunity was given to other candidates including petitioner who were also equally qualified and eligible to get the appointment. There should not be any cavil that when any appointment is offered through calling upon various names then, eligible candidates require to be offered an equal opportunity by the respondent authority in giving such employment. Wherein, if any type of irregularity/illegality is found in the process upto finalization of selection of an eligible candidate, the entire process of selecting the eligible candidate gets frustrated, thus, can be quashed.

10.1 According to my view, it was incumbent upon respondent No.2 to hold the detail inquiry in regards to the allegation of petitioner and if ultimately finds it to be proved then, it requires to pass appropriate order in connection with appointment of respondent No.5 as well as if permissible, direct respondent No.3/4 to hold process of interview afresh.

11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and for the foregoing reasons, I am of the view that respondent No.2 requires to undertake a detailed inquiry as Page 10 of 12 Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Tue Nov 18 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 19 03:10:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13800/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined contemplated by him in his afore stated order/communication dated 05/09.07.2014.

12. In view of the aforesaid, I pass/issue the following order and directions:

(i) Respondent No. 2 herein is directed to hold and complete a detailed inquiry as per its communication/order dated 05/09.07.2014 (Annexure 'C') within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

(ii) It is open for respondent No.2 to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and respondents Nos. 3 to 5 herein. All concern are permitted to submit their respective evidence in support of their case, which shall have to be examined by respondent No.2.

(ii) The parties shall have to co-operate to respondent No.2 in the detail inquiry. Its left to the discretion of respondent No.2 to grant indulgence to any of the parties who may seek time to submit their evidence. In any case, respondent No.2 shall have to complete inquiry and pass reason order within aforesaid time limit.

(iv) After holding such detail inquiry, by way of a reasoned order, respondent No.2 shall decide the grievance of the petitioner herein as voiced before him. Such order be communicated to all concern Page 11 of 12 Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Tue Nov 18 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 19 03:10:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13800/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined parties to this writ petition including petitioner.

(v) If the ultimate outcome of the detailed inquiry goes against any of the parties to this writ petition including petitioner, it is open for such party to challenge such decision of respondent No.2 in accordance with law before appropriate forum/court.

(vi) It is made clear that at this stage, this Court has neither gone into nor decided the aspect about any kind of illegality/irregularity committed by respondents Nos.3 and 4 in sending the interview letter to the petitioner, as the same shall have to be undertaken and to be decided by respondent No.2.

13. In view of the foregoing reasons and conclusion, the present writ petition is partly-allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule is made absolute, accordingly. No order as to costs.

(MAULIK J. SHELAT, J) GAURAV J THAKER Page 12 of 12 Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Tue Nov 18 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 19 03:10:00 IST 2025