Gujarat High Court
Dinesh Kantilal Solanki vs District And Session Court on 26 November, 2025
Author: Nirzar S. Desai
Bench: Nirzar S. Desai
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10509/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.10509 of 2012
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE :
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
=========================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
YES
=========================================
DINESH KANTILAL SOLANKI
Versus
DISTRICT AND SESSION COURT & ANR.
=========================================
Appearance :
MR TR MISHRA for the Petitioner.
VIKAS V NAIR for the Respondents No.1,2
=========================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
Date : 26/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed to direct the respondents to immediately issue appointment orders pursuant to the communication dated 22.3.2011 (Annexure F to this petition) for the post of Bailiff and to issue posting order forthwith.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to an advertisement issued in the year 1999 for the post of Bailiff, the petitioner had applied for the same and he was selected at Serial No.10 in the Select List. However, the Select List was operated only upto Serial No.8 and thereafter, it stopped operating and, Page 1 of 9 Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:58:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10509/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/11/2025 undefined therefore, the present petition was preferred with the aforesaid prayer.
3. Pursuant to a query from the Court, learned advocate Mr. T. R. Mishra was fair enough to state that at present, the petitioner is aged 56 years and the recruitment in question is of the year 1999. Hence, in this backdrop, the matter was taken up.
4. Mr. T. R. Mishra, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that when the select list has operated upto Serial No.8 and thereafter it stopped operating, it was the duty of the respondents to inform the petitioner about the reasons as to why the select list was not operated further. He further submitted that even as per Circular No.1458 of 1979 dated 19.12.2011, the petitioner being in the Select List, he ought to have been appointed on contractual basis as the aforesaid Circular provides for contractual appointment. However, even that also was not done by the respondents.
5. Learned advocate Mr. Mishra relied upon three decisions. The first decision of this Court in the case of R. P. Jani v. Union of India and another, 1982 G.L.H. 1102 wherein this Court has taken a view that if the name of a candidate is deleted from the Select List or removed from the Select List, he must be heard or at least an opportunity of hearing must be given to him to point out his version of matter. By relying upon the said decision, Mr. Mishra submitted that the petitioner was never heard nor even informed about the reasons behind his removal from the Select List and, therefore, the aforesaid action of the respondents of not appointing the petitioner can be termed as bad in law and, Page 2 of 9 Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:58:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10509/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/11/2025 undefined therefore, the same is required to be quashed and set aside and the petitioner may be appointed on the post of Bailiff.
6. Mr. Mishra further relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S. Govindaraju v. K. S. R. T. C. and another, AIR 1986 SC 1680 wherein it is held that even the temporary / Badli appointment given to a candidate whose name was selected in select list is also required to be considered for promotion as and when the vacancy arises. By relying upon the aforesaid decision, Mr. Mishra submitted that at the relevant point of time, as per the information sought under the RTI Act in the year 2012, there were several vacancies available in Amreli District for the post of Bailiff and, therefore, the respondents ought to have appointed the petitioner on the post of Bailiff.
7. Lastly, Mr. Mishra relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pawan Kumar Tiwary v. Jharkhand State Electricity Board (Now Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited), 2025 (0) AIJEL - SC 75757. Mr. Mishra submitted that once the petitioner is selected for the post of Bailiff, his appointment ought not to have been cancelled.
However, the aforesaid decision is in respect of appointment whereas in the instant case, the petitioner has not yet been appointed that is the distinguishing factor.
Mr. Mishra, therefore, prayed for allowing the present petition.
8. Mr. Vikas Nair, learned advocate appearing for the Page 3 of 9 Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:58:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10509/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/11/2025 undefined respondents has placed on record further affidavit on behalf of the respondent No.2 dated 26.11.2025 which is taken on record. Learned advocate Mr. Nair submitted that the petitioner's inclusion in the Select List would per se not create any right in favour of the petitioner to get appointment.
9. Mr. Nair further submitted that Full Court of this Court has resolved at the relevant point of time not to operate any existing Select List of direct recruitment in any cadre and, therefore, pursuant to the aforesaid decision, letter dated 26.7.2012 was issued by the Registrar General to all the Principal District Judges / Principal Judge, City Civil Court / the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad / the Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad directing them not to operate any Select List of direct recruitment in any cadre pending on their respective establishment and instead, liberty was granted to them to engage persons on purely temporary, adhoc and contractual basis on their establishment as per the instructions issued by this Court vide Circular No.B.1458/79 dated 19.12.2011 and B.1458/79 dated 22.2.2012.
10. Mr. Nair further submitted that it is a well settled principle of law that ultimately, once a candidate's name is found to be on select list, that would not confer any right in his favour and, therefore, he cannot seek appointment as a matter of right and whether to issue an appointment order or not is a matter purely within the domain of Recruiting Body which would act as per their requirement. He further submitted that this Court in the recruitment related to the year 1997 in similar set of facts in the case of Jadav Ajitkumar Bhailalbhai v. High Court of Gujarat Page 4 of 9 Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:58:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10509/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/11/2025 undefined through Registrar Recruitment, vide order dated 9.11.2012 in Special Civil Application No.15248 of 2012 has rejected the petition by taking into consideration and relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, (1991) 2 SCC 47 wherein Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that appearance of name of a candidate in the Select List does not give him a right of appointment. Mere inclusion of candidate's name in the select list does not confer any right to be selected. Even if some of the vacancies remained unfilled, the candidate concerned cannot claim that he has been subjected to hostile discrimination.
By making the above submissions and relying upon the aforesaid decision, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.
11. I have heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the record. On perusal of the record, I found that the petitioner's name figures at Sr. No.10 in the Select List for the post of Bailiff pursuant to an advertisement issued in the year 1999 and the Select List was operated upto Sr. No.8 and thereafter, the respondents decided not to operate the Select List. It is only on the basis of the petitioner's inclusion in the Select List at Serial No.10, the present petition is preferred. I have also considered the fact that in view of the letter dated 26.7.2012 issued by the Registrar General to all the Principal District Judges / Principal Judge, City Civil Court / the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad / the Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad directing them not to operate any Select List of direct recruitment in any cadre pending on their respective establishment and instead, liberty was granted to them to engage Page 5 of 9 Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:58:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10509/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/11/2025 undefined persons on purely temporary, adhoc and contractual basis on their establishment as per the instructions issued by this Court vide Circular No.B.1458/79 dated 19.12.2011 and B.1458/79 dated 22.2.2012, the Select List in question was not operated. Therefore, the question for consideration of this Court would be whether a person whose name is included in the Select List would confer any right to get appointed.
12. According to learned advocate Mr. T. R. Mishra, in view of the decision of this Court in the case of R. P. Jani v. Union of India and another (Supra), such right would accrue in favour of the petitioner. However, in the said decision, this Court in paragraph 7 has explained as to why the petitioner was required to be heard. The Court noted that even after getting adhoc promotion, he continued as adhoc and his juniors were promoted later on as their names appeared below the petitioner's name in the selection panel. Therefore, under that circumstances, when the petitioner's name was deleted from the Selection panel on the principles of fair play, he was required to be heard. In the instant case, the Select List stopped operating from Serial No.8 onwards and no person junior than the petitioner was ever appointed and, therefore, the aforesaid decision would not help the petitioner in any manner.
13. As far as the decision relied upon by learned advocate Mr. Mishra in the case of S. Govindaraju v. K. S. R. T. C. and another (Supra), in that case, facts were totally different as compared to the case on hand and, therefore, the said decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
Page 6 of 9 Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:58:32 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10509/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/11/2025 undefined
14. As far as the decision relied upon by learned advocate Mr. Mishra of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pawan Kumar Tiwary v. Jharkhand State Electricity Board (Now Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited) (Supra) is concerned, there the issue was that the petitioners were given appointments to the Class III posts and subsequently that was cancelled. In the instant case, no appointment order was ever issued to the petitioner and, therefore, there is no question of cancelling any appointment given to the petitioner. The Select List has operated upto Serial No.8 and thereafter stopped operating as per the instructions issued by this Court and, therefore, no person junior to the petitioner was ever appointed and, more particularly, when the petitioner's name is on the Select List, he cannot claim appointment as a matter of right.
15. As far as the decision of this Court relied upon by learned advocate Mr. Vikas Nair in the case of in the case of Jadav Ajitkumar Bhailalbhai v. High Court of Gujarat through Registrar Recruitment (Supra), it is observed in paragraphs 4 and 5 as under :-
"4.0 Heard the learned Advocates for the petitioners. The issue involved in the present petition is squarely covered by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Shankarsan Dash Vs. Union of India reported in (1991) 2 SCC 47, wherein, a constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that appearance of the name of a candidate in the select list does not give him a right of appointment. Mere inclusion of the candidate's Page 7 of 9 Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:58:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10509/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/11/2025 undefined name in the select list does not confer any right to be selected. Even if some of the vacancies remained unfilled, the candidate concerned cannot claim that he has been subjected to hostile discrimination. 5.0 Thus, it is well settled law that merely because a candidate has been put in the waiting list, he does not get any right to an appointment. A person whose name appeared in the select list does not acquire any indefeasible right of appointment. Empanelment at the best is a condition of eligibility for purpose of appointment and by itself does not amount to selection or create a vested right to be appointed."
16. Further, the decision which was relied upon by this Court in the above referred decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, (1991) 2 SCC 47 (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in paragraph 7 as under :-
"7. It is not correct to say that if a number of vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates are found fit, the successful candidates acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed which cannot be legitimately denied. Ordinarily the notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection they do not acquire any right to the post. Unless the relevant Page 8 of 9 Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:58:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10509/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/11/2025 undefined recruitment rules so indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies. However, it does not mean that the State has the licence of acting in an arbitrary manner. The decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons. And if the vacancies or any of them are filled up, the State is bound to respect the comparative merit of the candidates, as reflected at the recruitment test, and no discrimination can be permitted. This correct position has been consistently followed by this Court, and we do not find any discordant note in the decisions in State of Haryana v. Subhash Chander Marwaha and Others, [1974] 1 SCR 165; Miss Neelima Shangla v. State of Haryana and Others, [1986] 4 SCC 268 and Jitendra Kumar and Others v. State of Punjab and Others, [1985] 1 SCR 899."
17. Considering the above view taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as followed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in respect of similar recruitment drive which has undertaken in the year 1999, the petitioner cannot be said to have any vested right to get appointment on the post of Bailiff, merely because his name was included in the Select List. Accordingly, the petition is required to be dismissed and the same is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.
(NIRZAR S. DESAI,J) SAVARIYA Page 9 of 9 Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:58:32 IST 2025