Gujarat High Court
Neelam Radhika Singh vs State Of Gujarat on 13 October, 2025
Author: A.S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/891/2025 ORDER DATED: 13/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.891 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION/16131/2019
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO.1 of 2025
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.891 of 2025
================================================================
NEELAM RADHIKA SINGH
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR VAIBHAV A VYAS(2896) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS SHRUTI DHRUVE, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
MR PREMAL R JOSHI(1327) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
Date : 13/10/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 06.03.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.16131 of 2019. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant, which sought quashing and setting aside of the order dated 21.01.2019, whereby the recommendation of her name for appointment to the post of Motor Vehicle Prosecutor, Class-II, was declined. A further direction was sought for consideration of her case by operating the waiting list. It is the case of the appellant that her name ought to have been recommended for the aforementioned post, as the post in question was to be filled by a female candidate, and she was eligible for such appointment.
2. The appellant participated in the recruitment process Page 1 of 6 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Wed Oct 15 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 15 23:52:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/891/2025 ORDER DATED: 13/10/2025 undefined initiated vide advertisement dated 14.11.2024 for filling the post of Motor Vehicle Prosecutor, Class-II. Upon conclusion of the recruitment process, the final result was declared on 28.09.2017, wherein the appellant's name was placed in the waiting list under the general female category. Out of the seven posts advertised, four were to be filled by general category candidates, one by a candidate from the Socially and Educationally Backward Class (SEBC), and one each by the candidates from the reserved categories. One Shri Dhruv Dilipbhai Karia and Kumari Indiraben Ishwarbhai Patel were selected under the open category. The candidates at Serial Nos.1, 2, 4, and 5 joined their duties and served as Motor Vehicle Prosecutors, Class-II. Subsequently, Shri Dhruv Dilipbhai Karia (open category) and Kalyansinh Gadhvi (SEBC) tendered their resignations.
3. The appellant now claims appointment in place of Kumari Indiraben Ishwarbhai Patel as a general female category candidate.
4. Learned advocate Mr.Vaibhav Vyas, appearing for the appellant, has submitted that all posts, other than the one specifically reserved for female candidates, are also liable to be filled by meritorious female candidates such as the appellant. It is submitted that Kumari Indiraben Ishwarbhai Patel, placed at Serial No.3, was duly appointed and assumed duties under the general female category. Since other selected candidates have resigned, the appellant could be accommodated against a general category post. Learned Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Wed Oct 15 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 15 23:52:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/891/2025 ORDER DATED: 13/10/2025 undefined advocate Mr.Vyas has also placed reliance on the decision dated 10.09.2009 rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No.1412 of 2009.
5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms.Shruti Dhruve has submitted that the learned Single Judge has categorically observed that, in order to be appointed against any of the four general category posts claimed by the appellant, a candidate was required to secure a minimum of 50 marks. However, the appellant secured only 45 marks in the general female category as per the cut-off, and thus, she could not be appointed to a post meant for a general category candidate.
6. We have examined the facts of the case, as well as the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge, upon a detailed consideration of the factual matrix, the applicable recruitment rules and conditions, and the Government Resolution dated 27.07.2018, has held as follows:
"10.3. It emerges from the aforesaid that the minimum qualifying marks for the candidates belonging to general category are 50 marks and general category female are 45 marks. One female candidate, namely, Smt.Indiraben Ishwarbhai Patel, who appears at sr.no.3 secured 56 marks and resumed her duties with the respondent no.3 pursuant to the select list dated 28.09.2017. As the petitioner has secured 45 marks, she was kept in the waiting list for general (female) category candidates. It emerges that subsequently, candidates at sr.nos.1 and 2 i.e. Mr.Dhruv Dilipbhai Karia resumed duty on 20.03.2018 and Mr.Kalyansinh Sukhdevan Gadhvi resumed duty on 20.03.2018 and both left the duty on 11.03.2019 as both were selected as Assistant Public Prosecutor.
11. In view of the aforesaid, the petitioner seeks Page 3 of 6 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Wed Oct 15 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 15 23:52:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/891/2025 ORDER DATED: 13/10/2025 undefined appointment in general category on the ground that the waiting list is in operation for two years and it is within two years, the said candidates have either resigned or chosen not to resume their duties.
12. In the opinion of this Court, one seat is reserved for general category (female) candidates to which, Kumari Indiraben Ishwarbhai Patel at sr.no.3 is duly appointed and has resumed the duty in general (female) candidate. In view thereof, there is no vacancy available for the general (female) candidate. Even if the other candidates have either resigned or not joined pursuant to the appointment orders issued to them, as referred to above within a period of one year, as provided under clause 6 of the government resolution dated 27.07.2008, the appointment is to be made by obtaining the names of the candidates from the waiting list for the same category in which, the posts are vacant. Admittedly, the petitioner has secured 45 marks i.e. less than 50 marks, which is the minimum qualifying standard in general category and the qualifying criteria for general category is 50 marks.
14. It is also apposite to reproduce clause 2(7) of the advertisement no.04/2014-15, which is relied upon by the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, which is duly produced at page 13, which reads as under:-
"2(7) When certain posts out of total posts are reserved for the female candidates in any category, it is not to believe that the remaining posts excepts the posts reserved for female candidates are reserved only for male candidates. Male and female candidates may be considered for selection on such posts. Male and female candidates may apply for such posts. (e.g. Out of total 10 posts, 03 posts are reserved for female candidates, however, female candidates may be selected for the remaining 07 posts."
15. Clause - 6 of the government resolution dated 27.07.2018 provides that if a candidate from the select list is appointed and he/she does not join or leaves the service within one year by resigning or due to death or other reasons or is relieved from duty for any other reason, then the appointment shall only be made by obtaining the names of the candidates from the waiting list for the same category in which, the posts are vacant. Even otherwise, in the opinion of this Court, the petitioner has not secured 50 marks to be considered as eligible for the general category candidate and the candidate in female general category has already taken appointment.
Page 4 of 6 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Wed Oct 15 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 15 23:52:52 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/891/2025 ORDER DATED: 13/10/2025 undefined
19. In the facts of the present case, the female candidate is already appointed in the said general category (female) and for the general category, the aforesaid reservation, which is horizontal reservation, in the opinion of this Court, cannot be carried forward and it has to be considered as a general category post. On merits, as the petitioner has not secured 50 marks, which is minimum qualifying criteria required to be considered for the post of motor vehicle prosecutor - Class-II general category and as the petitioner has secured 45 marks, no case is made out to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India."
7. We are in complete agreement with the observations recorded by the learned Single Judge. It is not in dispute that the appellant, who was placed in the waiting list, is claiming appointment against the vacancy arising in the general category, for which the cut-off marks is 50, whereas the appellant has secured only 45 marks, which corresponds to the cut-off for the general female category. The judgment relied upon by the appellant does not support her case, as it is inapplicable to the facts at hand. In the said judgment, the Division Bench was concerned with the appointment of reserved category candidates who had secured more than the minimum qualifying marks and were directed to be included in the merit list for appointment under the Scheduled Tribe female category. In order to claim appointment to a post in the general category, the appellant is required to satisfy the minimum qualifying mark of 50. Kumari Indraben Patel, who was appointed under the general category, had secured 56 marks, whereas the post vacated by Shri Dhruv Karia, who belonged to the general category, had secured 60 marks, cannot be claimed by the appellant as she does not meet the requisite cut-off.
Page 5 of 6 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Wed Oct 15 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 15 23:52:52 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/891/2025 ORDER DATED: 13/10/2025 undefined
8. Accordingly, the present Letters Patent Appeal is devoid of merit and, therefore, stands rejected. Consequently, the connected Civil Application No.1 of 2025 does not survive and also stands rejected.
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J) (L. S. PIRZADA, J) Hitesh / 54 Page 6 of 6 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Wed Oct 15 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 15 23:52:52 IST 2025