Gujarat High Court
Cambay Education Society vs Chaudhari Vinodkumar Narsangbhai on 14 October, 2025
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1566/2019 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1566 of 2019
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4060 of 2009
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2019
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1566 of 2019
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 191 of 2020
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4060 of 2009
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2019 In R/LETTERS PATENT
APPEAL NO. 191 of 2020
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4060 of 2009
==========================================================
CAMBAY EDUCATION SOCIETY & ANR.
Versus
CHAUDHARI VINODKUMAR NARSANGBHAI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR JIGAR G GADHAVI(5613) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 10,2,3
MR KIRTIDEV R DAVE(3267) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 11,12,13,14,15,16,5,9
RULE UNSERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 4,7,8
UNSERVED EXPIRED (R) for the Respondent(s) No. 6
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.
JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 14/10/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)
1. The Letters Patent Appeal No.1566 of 2019 has been filed on behalf of the Management of the Institution, namely The Cambay Education Society, which is running Shri Page 1 of 30 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 00:11:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1566/2019 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined Madhavlal Shah High School at Khambhat, District Anand and the Principal of the aforesaid Institution.
2. Another Letters Patent Appeal No.191 of 2020 has been filed on behalf of the State respondents through the Secretary, Education Department, District Education Officer and two other authorities of the State.
3. The challenge in both the appeals are to the common judgment and order dated 08.05.2019 passed by the writ court in Special Civil Application No.4060 of 2009. The said writ petition was filed with the prayers as under:-
"22(a) To quash and set aside the impugned decision of the respondent no.3 D.E.O. as per Annexure-O whereby he has decided that fresh interview proceedings may be undertaken, though admittedly the D.E.Ο. has clearly come to the conclusion that but for the malpractices which had taken place in the interview held on 5-12-2008 the petitioner would have been selected at rank no.1 and he would have been given the appointment;
(b) To direct the respondent no.3 D.E.O. to grant approval for appointment of the petitioner and to direct the respondent nos.4 and 5 to give appointment to the petitioner as Shikshan Sahayak in Shri Madhavlal Shah High School, Khambhat, with all the consequential Page 2 of 30 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 00:11:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1566/2019 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined benefits on the basis of the petitioner's lawful selection at 2nd rank at the interview held on 5-12-2008 the advertisement dated pursuant 3-10-2006 and in view of the admitted facts that the candidate selected at 1 st rank Mr. Pritesh Jivanbhai Patel had declined to accept the appointment;
(c) To direct the respondent nos.1 and 2 to take appropriate penal action against the respondent nos.4 to 11 and 13 for the illegalities committed by them in connivance with each other and by wrongfully showing the respondent nos.14 and 15 to be present at the interview held on 5-12-2008;
(d) PENDING THE HEARING AND FINAL DISPOSAL OF THIS PETITION, BE PLEASED to direct the respondent no.3 to grant approval for the petitioner's appointment as Shikshan Sahayak in Shri Madhavlal Shah High School, Khambhat and to direct the respondent nos.4 and 5 to give the appointment to the petitioner as such, pursuant to the advertisement dated 3-10-2006 and interview held on 5-
12-2008 with all the consequential benefits;
(e) PENDING THE HEARING AND FINAL DISPOSAL OF THIS PETITION, PLEASED BE to issue interim directions in terms of paragraph 22(d) above;
(f) To grant any other appropriate and just relief/s;"
4. At the outset, we may note that both the appeals have been heard together and are being decided by this common Page 3 of 30 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 00:11:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1566/2019 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined judgment with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
5. While allowing the writ petition, setting aside the impugned order dated 18.04.2009 passed by the District Education Officer to initiate fresh selection for the post-in- question, the learned Single Judge directed that the respondent nos.4 and 5 [Management and the Principal of the Institution] i.e.appellants herein are required to appoint petitioner to the post of teacher as per the advertisement dated 03.10.2006. It is also recorded by the learned Single Judge that the learned advocate for the petitioner fairly intimated that the petitioner was recently employed elsewhere since 17.07.2018 only. In view of the same, direction was issued to the State respondents to grant 50% backwages to the petitioner and continuity of service with effect from 05.12.2008, the date when offer for appointment was given to the candidate placed at Sr. No.1 in the select-list, who had refused to accept the offer.
6. It is further provided that the appointment of the petitioner shall be governed by the rules and regulations, Page 4 of 30 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 00:11:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1566/2019 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined which were prevalent at the relevant point of time and the respondents are required to grant revised pay-scale, which is revised from time-to-time, and further fix the seniority of the petitioner w.e.f.05.12.2008. It is also directed by the learned Single Judge that the respondent-State shall recover 50% of the backwages to be awarded to the petitioner from the respondent nos.4 and 5, namely the Management and the Principal of the Institution concerned, as there were serious allegations of fraud committed by the respondent nos.4 and 5 in denying appointment to the petitioner pursuant to the select-list declared on 05.12.2008.
7. In the appeal filed on behalf of the original respondent nos.4 an 5 namely the Management and the Principal of the Institution, it was argued by Mr. Jigar G. Gadhavi, learned advocate for the appellants that the appeal is confined to the award of 50% backwages to the petitioner and the challenge is on the principle of 'no work no pay'. It was argued that since the petitioner has not been appointed to the post-in- question and has never worked, there was no question of payment of backwages to him. It is also submitted that when there was no claim of the petitioner for the backwages in the Page 5 of 30 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 00:11:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1566/2019 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined prayer clause of the writ petition, there was no question of grant of backwages. The reliance is placed on the decision of U.P. State Brassware Corporation Ltd. Vs. Uday Narayan Pandey reported in (2006) 1 SCC 479 to substantiate the above submissions.
8. In the appeal filed on behalf of the State appellants, it is sought to be submitted that no infirmity can be attached to the order dated 18.04.2009 passed by the District Education Officer in issuing directions to hold fresh selection, inasmuch as, serious irregularities were found in the selection process.
9. Mr. Sanjay Udhwani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State respondents would rely on the affidavit of respondent no.3 namely the District Education Officer filed before the writ Court to submit that since the selection process was found to be faulty, inasmuch as, irregularities and fraud had been committed by the Interview Committee and the Management Committee, the select-list cannot be given effect to. The submission is that even a First Information Report was lodged against 09 persons including the members of the Selection Committee and after Page 6 of 30 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 00:11:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1566/2019 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined investigation, chargesheet has been filed against 06 persons constituting the selection committee. It is contended that the whole interview process was illegal and the result of the interview was liable to be cancelled.
10. Placing the affidavit of the District Education Officer, it submitted that even the trustees of the society had been removed and a communication dated 27.08.2009 had been sent to the Charity Commissioner, Vadodara intimating the said removal. Penalty of Rs.50,000/- has been imposed upon the School Management. The Principal of the Institution who was member of the Interview Committee namely R. R. Suthar has also been penalized with the penalty of Rs.15,000/-. Two teachers of the Institution have been penalized with the penalty of Rs.10,000/- each. A proposal recommending de- recognition of the school has also been sent to the Gujarat Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Board [in short referred as 'The Board'].
11. However, in the interest and welfare of the children, for the larger cause of education, the board has decided not to de-recognize the institution, but to impose penalty on the Page 7 of 30 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 00:11:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1566/2019 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined society namely Cambay Education Society, Khambhat. A copy of the order passed by the Gujarat Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Board is also appended as Annexure-'R6' to the affidavit of respondent no.3. It is also stated in the affidavit of respondent no.3 that Mr. D.K. Patel, representative of the board who was member of the interview committee was also removed from the penal of interview committee by an order dated 20.06.2009 passed by the Gujarat Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Board.
12. With these facts placed before us with the aid of the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of respondent no.3 namely District Education Officer, Anand, appended at page-'310' of the paper-book of Letters Patent Appeal No.1566 of 2019 filed by the Management, it is submitted by Mr. Sanjay Udhwani, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the State respondents that the Interview Committee and the Managing Committee of the school had included 02 outsiders, who were impleaded as respondent nos.14 and 15 in the writ petition, by placing them at the rank nos.2 and 3 in the select-list prepared after the interview held on 05.12.2008 for the post- in-question. It is contended that the respondent nos.14 and 15 Page 8 of 30 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 00:11:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1566/2019 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined were rank outsiders and the fact of their inclusion in the select-list itself is sufficient to quash the entire selection process. The Management Committee and the members of Interview Committee were found guilty of committing fraud and illegality in preparation of the select-list by inclusion of names of two rank outsiders in the select-list [impleaded as respondent nos.14 and 15 in the writ petition]. The submission is that in light of these irregularities and fraud committed by the Management Committee and the Interview Committee, no infirmity can be attached to the decision of the District Education Officer to cancel the entire selection process and issue directions to the Management to hold fresh selection.
13. Taking note of the above submissions before proceeding further, we may record that earlier a Special Civil Application No.2858 of 2009 was filed by the petitioner herein with the prayer to hold and declare that the petitioner is selected in the interview for the post of Shikshan Sahayak in the Institution namely Madhavlal Shah High School, Khambhat pursuant to the advertisement dated 03.10.2006. A further prayer therein was to direct the District Education Officer to Page 9 of 30 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 00:11:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1566/2019 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined grant approval for appointment of the petitioner and further to direct the respondents to give appointment to the petitioner as Shikshan Sahayak in the aforesaid institution. It was also prayed that an inquiry be held for the illegalities and fraud committed by the members of the selection committee in connivance with the office of the District Education Officer, by including the names of respondent nos.14 and 15 therein in the select-list, in the light of statements made by the respondent nos.14 and 15, themselves.
14. Before proceeding further, we may record that an order dated 08.04.2009 has been passed by the writ Court therein, wherein it is noted that respondent no.14 namely Mr. Alpeshbhai Ranchhodbhai Patel, and respondent no.15 namely Satishbhai Bhagwanbhai Patel were personally present in the Court. The respondent no.14 namely Mr. Alpeshbhai Ranchhodbhai Patel made a statement at the bar in Gujarati which has been translated and noted in the order dated 08.04.2009. It is categorically stated by the respondent no.14 in his statement made in the Court that he had never received any Interview Call from the Management or the Principal of the Institution namely respondent nos.4 and 5 therein, and as Page 10 of 30 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 00:11:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1566/2019 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined such, there was no occasion for him to appear in the interview held on 05.12.2008. He had never signed the Rojkam suggesting his presence in the interview held on 05.12.2008. His alleged signature in the Rojkam showing his attendance in the interview on 05.12.2008 was forged one. It is also stated by respondent no.4 before the writ Court that there was no reason for him to participate in the interview as he was already working in another school namely Karve High School, Mehsana and he was on duty on 05.12.2008.
15. The statement of respondent no.15 namely Satishbhai Bhagwanbhai Patel made at the bar in Gujarati and translated in English has also been recorded in the order dated 08.04.2009, wherein he stated that he had never appeared before the Interview Committee in the interview held on 05.12.2008. In-fact, he was serving in an institution at Shree Vallabh Vidhyalaya, Teniwada, Tal.Vadgam, District Banaskantha permanently and he was on duty on 05.12.2008 in the said institution and, as such, there was no question of him having participated in the interview held on the said date.
16. We may note from the content of the order dated Page 11 of 30 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 00:11:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1566/2019 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined 08.04.2009 that the interview committee held the interview on 05.12.2008 in an institution named as Vallabh Vidhyanagar Camp. The order dated 08.04.2009 further records that even the Principal of the said Institution namely Shree Vallabh Vidhyalaya, Teniwada, Tal.Vadgam, District Banaskantha impleaded as respondent no.17 was personally present in the Court.
17. With the above noted facts recorded in the order dated 08.04.2009, it is evident that the names of respondent nos.14 an 15 were added in the Rojkam for interview dated 05.12.2008 and then their names were illegally added in the select list at Sr. Nos.2 and 3, when they were neither the applicants nor had ever participated in the selection process.
18. It may not be out of place to mention here that vide order dated 08.04.2009, this Court had directed the District Education Officer to conduct a detailed inquiry against the Management and Principal of the Institution and also against all concerned and further, if allegations are found to be true on inquiry by the District Education Officer, it warranted de- recognition of the school run by the respondent no.4 - Page 12 of 30 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 00:11:11 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1566/2019 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined Management and actions against the members of the Selection Committee.
19. It seems that after the said directions were issued by this Court, the proceedings for imposing penalty against the members of the Interview Committee, the Managing Committee, Principal and Teachers of the Institution as well as lodging of the First Information Report were undertaken upon inquiry conducted by the District Education Officer.
20. It is, thus, evident that all proceedings were undertaken by the District Education Officer to examine the correctness of the select-list only after the directions were issued by this Court in the order dated 08.04.2009, on recording the statements of respondent nos.14 and 15. The impugned order dated 18.04.2009 for holding fresh selection, was passed, thereafter.
21. We may further record that the Special Civil Application No.2858 of 2009 was finally disposed of vide judgment and order dated 24.04.2009 giving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order dated 18.04.2009 passed by the District Page 13 of 30 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 00:11:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1566/2019 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined Education Officer taking note of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no justification for the District Education Officer to quash and set aside the entire selection process and in-fact the petitioner was required to be appointed by granting prayers made in the said writ petition itself.
22. A perusal of the order dated 24.04.2009 of disposal of the aforesaid writ petition indicates that the writ Court without expressing any opinion on the merits of the order dated 18.04.2009 passed by the District Education Officer had granted liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition challenging the same. The occasion has, thus, arisen to file the Special Civil Application No.4060 of 2009 to challenge the order dated 18.04.2009 passed by the District Education Officer, which has been allowed by the order impugned.
23. Taking note of the stand of the State - appellants in the affidavit placed before us by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, we may proceed to look into the affidavit of the respondent nos.4 and 5 namely the Management and the Principal of the Institution, i.e. the appellants herein filed Page 14 of 30 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 00:11:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1566/2019 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined in the previous petition namely, Special Civil Application No.2858 of 2009. The affidavit of the Management of the Institution, namely respondent no.5 in the Special Civil Application No.4060 is at page-'260' of the paper-book wherein only this much is stated that the necessary respondent/ deponent adopts the contentions, averments, statements and submissions made in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the Management in Special Civil Application No.2858 of 2009. It is noted that there is no whisper in the said affidavit about the preparation of the select-list, pursuant to the interview held on 05.12.2008. The affidavit of the Principal of the Institution therein namely appellant no.2 herein only narrates the proceedings which were conducted by the school management for notifying the vacancy vide advertisement published on 03.10.2006, on grant of 'no objection certificate' by the District Education Officer dated 13.09.2006. It is stated in the affidavit of the Principal of the Institution namely appellant no.2 [appended at page no.'131' of the paper-book] that pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement, the school management had received 12 applications and out of the same, one application being time barred was rejected at the threshold. Names of prospective Page 15 of 30 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 00:11:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1566/2019 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined candidates were also called from the Employment Exchange in view of the communication dated 05.07.2007 of the District Education Officer, Anand. 30 names were received from the Employment Exchange and in all 30 Plus (+) 11 candidates, whose applications have been received directly by the school management were called for interview.
24. It is contended in the affidavit of the Principal of the Institution that on 24.11.2008, the District Education Officer directed the school management to send the interview call letters to the candidates shortlisted in the merit list. Interviews were held on 05.12.2008 in the Camp organized by the Office of the District Education Officer, Anand, at R.P.T.P. High School at Vallabh Vidyanagar. In the interview, the representatives of the management as also the representatives of the board were present. The entire management of the interview held on 05.12.2008 was made by the Office of the District Education Officer and as a result whereof, one Shri Patel Pritesh Jivanbhai came to be selected.
25. The Principal stated therein that the petitioner as well as respondent nos.14 and 15 were sent interview call letters by Page 16 of 30 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 00:11:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1566/2019 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined Registered Post, as was sent to other candidates who were called for interview. Even, the Registered A.D. Postal receipts of the call letters sent to the respondent nos.14 and 15 were appended as Annexure 'D' to the aforesaid affidavit to submit that it appears that they had received the call letters on 28.11.2008. The further contention in the affidavit of the Principal is that the merit-list upon scrutiny of the applications of all candidates, who had submitted their application forms pursuant the advertisement and whose names were sent by the Employment Exchange was required to be submitted to the District Education Officer before the interview. It is, however, admitted that the name of the petitioner was at Sr. No.5 in the said list. There is, however, further silence about the names of the respondent nos.14 and 15 being included in the merit-list sent to the District Education Officer or the said candidates having participated in the interview held on 05.12.2008.
26. In fact the affidavit-in-reply filed by the Principal of the Institution in the previous petition namely Special Civil Application No.2858 of 2009, which has been appended at page no.'131' of the paper-book, placed before us, is silent Page 17 of 30 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 00:11:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1566/2019 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined about the participation of respondent nos.14 and 15 in the interview process. It is though sought to be stated therein that the statement made by the respondent no.14 before this Court on 08.04.2009 was without any basis and against the weight of evidence. Only this much is stated that the respondent no.14 had received the interview call letter. Thus, there is no clarity nor there is any statement as to how the names of the respondent nos.14 and 15 were shown in the Rojkam of the interview held on 05.12.2008. It is also not disclosed as to how and whether the names of the respondent nos.14 and 15 were included in the select-list sent to the District Education Officer, at Sr. Nos.2 and 3 while placing the petitioner at Sr. no.4.
27. Further, from the affidavit of the District Education Officer, atleast, it is evident that the management committee was required to submit the list of the selected candidates immediately after the interviews were over and as per the Rules, the District Education Officer was required to grant sanction for appointment to the selected candidates, before issuing offer letter of appointment.
Page 18 of 30 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 00:11:11 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1566/2019 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined
28. It is also evident from the affidavit of the District Education Officer that the select-list was forwarded by the School Management and the name of one Mr. Pritesh Jivanbhai Patel was shown as the first ranked selected candidate therein. The District Education Officer in his affidavit has stated that as per Rule-18 of the Rules framed by the Gujarat Secondary and Higher Secondary Board, 15 days time was required to be given for appointment and resumption of the duty by the selected candidates. It is also stated that the sanction letter dated 05.12.2008 was issued wherein condition no.4 stated that if within 15 days the selected candidate did not resume the duty then the name of the next candidate was to be sent for sanction.
29. The District Education Officer in his affidavit has further stated that as per the procedure, the management was required to send the name of the second placed candidate in the select-list when the first placed candidate had not resumed the duty. In the instant case, Mr. Pritesh Patel had refused to accept the appointment because he was also appointed as Sikshan Sahayak [in a different school], and hence, the next step for the management was to send the Page 19 of 30 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 00:11:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1566/2019 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined name of second placed candidate so as to grant sanction for appointment of such candidate at the ends of the District Education Officer.
30. Having said that, pertinent is to note that the District Education Officer though made a statement in the affidavit that the list of the selected candidates was submitted by the Management after the interview and he had also granted sanction to the selection of first placed candidate with the condition that in case the said candidate did not resume the duty within 15 days, the name of second placed candidate was required to be forwarded. But the fact remains that it seems that no independent inquiry was made by the District Education Officer with the record of selection about the select-list forwarded to him prior to the grant of sanction vide letter dated 05.12.2008 to the first placed candidate. The select-list forwarded to the District Education Officer, as admitted in the affidavit, has not been placed on record of the said affidavit though it is sought to be stated therein that the respondent nos.14 and 15 had been shown as second and third ranked candidates as alleged by the petitioner. Page 20 of 30 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 00:11:11 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1566/2019 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined
31. It is, thus, evident that an evasive reply has been submitted by the District Education Officer in Special Civil Application No.4060 of 2009, out of which the present appeal has arisen, with regard to the insertion of the names of the respondent nos.14 and 15 as second and third ranked candidates. There is a complete silence in the affidavit of the Management about the select-list prepared after interview dated 05.12.2008. Only response of respondent no.5 namely the Principal of the Institution, i.e. appellant no.2 herein has been filed in the Special Civil Application No.4060 of 2009, which is appended at page no.'303' of the paper-book of the appeal filed by the Management and the Principal herein. The said affidavit is, however, silent about the selection process and the select-list prepared pursuant to the interview dated 05.12.2008.
32. From the facts noted herein above, it is evident that neither the District Education Officer nor the School Management and the Principal of the Institution had come out with clean hands before the writ Court. It is not known as to who is responsible for manipulation in the select-list prepared on 05.12.2008. The select-list has not seen the light of the Page 21 of 30 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 00:11:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1566/2019 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined day. The inquiry conducted by the District Education Officer is pursuant to the order dated 08.04.2009 passed by this Court in the first round of litigation initiated by the petitioner in the Special Civil Application No.2858 of 2009.
33. It is, thus, difficult for us to accept the stand of the State appellant that the entire selection was a result of the fraudulent exercise conducted by the Selection Committee or the Interview Board. No one knows as to who had manipulated the select-list dated 05.12.2008. However, the fact remains that the entries in the Rojkam of the interview held on 05.12.2008 had illegally recorded the names of the respondent nos.14 and 15 who had categorically denied before this Court that they were called for interview and they had appeared in the interview held on 05.12.2008. For entries in the Rojkam, reference of which is found in the order dated 08.04.2009, the fault can only be attributed to the Management and Principal of the Institution.
34. It is, thus, evident that interpolation in the select-list was made after the process of interview was completed on 05.12.2008 pursuant to the advertisement where-under the Page 22 of 30 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 00:11:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1566/2019 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined petitioner had participated in the interview.
35. Considering the above, we find that it was incumbent upon the District Education Officer to call for the entire record of selection and peruse the same before grant of sanction for appointment whether this was done or not is not disclosed. While making the inquiry under the order of this Court again nothing had been done. The learned Single Judge, therefore, has rightly recorded that two persons were fraudulently introduced by the Selection Committee and if the names of those candidates are excluded from the select-list, the petitioner would be the second placed candidate. There is no dispute or doubt about the participation of the petitioner in the selection process and the marks allocated to him. For the fact that the first placed candidate had refused to accept the offer of appointment, the petitioner being second placed candidate was clearly entitled for appointment as per the Rules.
36. Considering the above, the learned Single Judge has rightly held that the District Education Officer has committed an error in directing for fresh selection, when there was no Page 23 of 30 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 00:11:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1566/2019 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined dispute about the marks assigned for the interview and that the same were allotted as per the Circular issued by the District Education Officer. It is rightly held that the advertisement for the post-in-question which necessitated the requisite qualification, which the petitioner fulfilled, has not been interfered with. The result is that for illegal act of the Management and the Interview Committee by making interpolation of two outsiders in the select-list, the entire selection process could not have been cancelled.
37. As far as the petitioner is concerned, no fault in the entire process of selection or interview can be attributed to him. The petitioner has duly participated in the selection process, appeared in the interview and approached this Court at an appropriate point of time when the Management refused to offer appointment to him though he was the second placed candidate as per the marks allocated by the Interview Committee. In the first round of litigation, the petitioner made a categorical statement that two rank outsiders were illegally shown as selected candidates by interpolation for placing them at Sr. No.2 and 3 of the select-list and the said statement was found to be correct on an inquiry made by the Page 24 of 30 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 00:11:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1566/2019 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined Court under the order dated 08.04.2009.
38. In this scenario, it is evident that the respondent nos.4 and 5 namely the appellants - Management and the Principal of the Institution have been instrumental in refusing to offer appointment to the petitioner, when the first placed candidate had turned down the offer.
39. As noted herein before, as per the Rules and Condition no.4 in the sanction letter dated 05.12.2008 sent by the District Education Officer, the Management was required to send the name of the second placed candidate for sanction, when the first placed candidate had refused to join, by turning down the offer of appointment.
40. For the fault on the part of the appellants namely Management and the Principal of the Institution, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer. Resultantly, the learned Single Judge has rightly reached at the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled for appointment with continuity of service w.e.f. 05.12.2008, when the first placed candidate had denied the offer of appointment.
Page 25 of 30 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 00:11:11 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1566/2019 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined
41. For the fact that the petitioner has been illegally denied the appointment at the behest of the Management and the Principal of the Institution, for the fraud committed by them by making interpolation in the select-list and the Rojkam after interview, the learned Single Judge instead of imposing exemplary cost upon them including the State authorities had moulded the relief to award 50% backwages to the petitioner who suffered at the ends of the Management and the State authorities, for their illegal action and inaction both.
42. The learned Single Judge has, thus, rightly reached at the conclusion that for the illegal act of the Management and the Principal of the Institution for making interpolation in the Rojkam and the select-list, they are required to bear the backwages awarded to the petitioner.
43. The investigation and inquiry which was conducted after intervention of this Court or imposition of the penalty upon the Management and the Principal and action against the members of the Selection Committee cannot be a reason to quash the entire selection process by the District Education Page 26 of 30 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 00:11:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1566/2019 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined Officer, by order dated 18.04.2009 which was passed it seems without conducting any further inquiry into the records of the selection.
44. The stand of the State appellant to seek the dismissal of the writ petition on the premise of the illegality or fraud committed in the selection process is, thus, liable to be turned down.
45. The principle of 'no work no pay' as is applicable in the event of award of backwages as well as the principles laid down in the decision of the Apex Court in the case of U.P. State Brassware Corporation Ltd. Vs. Uday Narayan Pandey reported in (2006) 1 SCC 479 are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The contention of the Management and the Principal that the petitioner is not entitled for any backwages on the principle of 'no work no pay' is, accordingly turned down.
46. Lastly, it is pointed by the learned counsel for the respondent/original petitioner that while admitting the Letters Patent Appeal No.1566 of 2019 filed by the Management and Page 27 of 30 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 00:11:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1566/2019 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined the Principal of the Institution, by order dated 16.09.2019, this Court has issued specific directions to the learned counsel for the appellants as also the learned Assistant Government Pleader to ensure that the appointment be given to the writ petitioner/respondent herein within a period of one month from the said date and the recovery of backwages as awarded by the learned Single Judge has been stayed subject to the said condition. It is further provided that in case, appointment is not provided within a one month from the said date i.e. 16.09.2019 to the writ petitioner/respondent herein, it would be open for the respondent to claim the backwages by appropriately applying before this Court.
47. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent/ original petitioner that the petitioner has been given appointment only on 13.11.2024 and he has joined and working. However, not a single penny towards salary etc. has been paid to him so far, leave apart payment of backwages as per the directions of this Court in the order dated 16.09.2019.
48. Taking note of the above, we provide that apart from the 50% of backwages to which the petitioner is entitled under Page 28 of 30 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 00:11:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1566/2019 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined the judgment and order dated 16.09.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge, w.e.f.16.10.2019, i.e.after expiry of period of one month from the date of order admitting the appeal of the Management, the petitioner shall be entitled to full backwages up till 13.11.2024 as if he was appointed and working on the post-in-question w.e.f.16.10.2019.
49. The petitioner shall further be entitled to the arrears of the salary and other allowances w.e.f. 13.11.2024. The unpaid arrears of salary and other allowances w.e.f.13.11.2024 are payable to the petitioner alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum. The current salary alongwith the allowances shall be paid to the petitioner on or before 05.11.2025 for the month of October, 2025 with interest at rate of 9% per annum. From November, 2025 the current salary shall be paid in a timely manner as and when the same falls due as also the allowances admissible to the post, failing which it would be for the petitioner to initiate its action.
50. With the above, both the appeals filed by the Management and the Principal of Institution as also the appeal files by the State authorities including the District Page 29 of 30 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 00:11:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1566/2019 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined Education Officer are hereby dismissed. No order as to cost.
Consequently, the civil application for stay would not survive and the same are disposed of, accordingly.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ ) (D.N.RAY,J) A. B. VAGHELA Page 30 of 30 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 00:11:11 IST 2025