Narendra Hasmukh Parmar vs The Municipal Commissioner
2022 Latest Caselaw 1092 Guj

      C/SCA/16918/2019                             ORDER DATED: 02/02/2022




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

              R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16918 of 2019

==========================================================
                         NARENDRA HASMUKH PARMAR
                                    Versus
                         THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR JB DASTOOR(239) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR KURVEN DESAI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================

     CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV

                               Date : 02/02/2022

                                ORAL ORDER

1. By way of this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for the purpose of appointment to the post of Office Superintendent or Assistant Head Clerk without insisting for non-creamy layer certificate in Gujarati language only and to direct the respondent to consider the non creamy layer caste certificate issued by the competent authority in English language as valid.

2. Facts in brief would indicate that the petitioner was appointed as Junior Computer Operator on 20.10.2001 under the respondent Corporation. The petitioner is a commerce graduate and has obtained an MCA degree. He belongs to the 'Valand' caste. On 30.12.2015 an advertisement was issued for appointment to the post of (I) Assistant Senior Clerk (II) Assistant Head Clerk and (III) Office Superintendent. Being eligible to apply, the petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Head Clerk as well as Office Superintendent in the reserved category.

C/SCA/16918/2019 ORDER DATED: 02/02/2022

Admittedly, according to the petitioner he was not only qualified in terms of educational qualification but also was within the age prescribed in the advertisement. The petitioner on 02.12.2018 was called for examination and he appeared for both the examinations for the post of Assistant Head Clerk as well as Office Superintendent. On being successful in the examinations, he was called for document verification. The petitioner appeared on 17.06.2019 for the document verification for the post of Office Superintendent. At that time, along with the documents produced, the petitioner produced a certificate of Scheduled Caste - non creamy layer certificate dated 07.01.2016 to show that the petitioner belongs to non creamy layer. The certificate was issued in English language. According to the petitioner, the advertisement stipulated that the certificate for the two posts be produced in Gujarati language, however, the petitioner having produced certificate in English, he has not been considered for appointment to either of the posts. Representations were made by the petitioner that it was only by inadvertence that he had produced the certificate in english language which can be considered as valid. According to the petitioner at the relevant time 60 posts were vacant in the cadre of Office Superintendent.

3. Mr. J.B. Dastoor, learned advocate for the petitioner during the course of submissions would submit that it is not apt for the respondent Corporation to insist for certificate only in Gujarati language when the certificate in English is also one which reflects the status of the petitioner. Together with the rejoinder, the petitioner has produced decisions of this court wherein a identical question of production of certificates in english language was considered. He would invite the attention of the court to the decision rendered in SCA No. 10492 of 2015 dated 02.07.2015 and another decision of this court rendered in SCA No. 15745 of 2015 dated

C/SCA/16918/2019 ORDER DATED: 02/02/2022

21&23.10.2015.

4. Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation would submit by drawing attention of the court to the affidavit-in-reply that the advertisement categorically mentioned that the certificate had to be as per Schedule K as provided in the Government Resolution dated 06.02.1996 issued by the Government of Gujarat. The petitioner submitted his application for the post of Assistant Head Clerk and Office Superintendent with a non creamy layer certificate in english language issued by the Mamlatdar, Ghatlodia. It was in accordance with condition no. 14 of the advertisement that the certificate could not be held to be valid. Accordingly, the petitioner's case was overlooked for the appointment to both the posts.

5. Pursuant to the order dated 21.01.2022, an additional affidavit has been filed by one Dipak Nayak, Dy. HOD, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation. The affidavit indicates that 61 posts were to be filled in for the cadre of Office Superintendent and 66 posts were to be filled in the cadre of Assistant Head Clerk. The petitioner had applied for both the cadres and the candidature was not considered because of the non- submission of the certificate as per the requirement. The affidavit further indicates that in the cadre of Office Superintendent the petitioner had secured 43.75 marks in the written test. The petitioner was not invited for oral interview due to rejection of his candidature and therefore he was not given marks for the interview. As far as the post of Head Clerk is concerned, the petitioner secured 39.75 marks and there was no provision for oral interview. The affidavit would further indicate that the petitioner belongs to SEBC category and in all 16 posts were to be filled in in the category of Office Superintendent and 5 posts are still vacant. As far as

C/SCA/16918/2019 ORDER DATED: 02/02/2022

the Assistant Head Clerk is concerned, in all 17 posts were to be filled up through the candidates belonging to SEBC category but 15 posts have remained vacant. It is further mentioned in the affidavit filed by the Corporation that subsequently no recruitment process for the cadres of Head Clerk and Office Superintendent are initiated.

6. I have heard learned advocates for the respective parties. In the decision rendered in SCA No. 10492 of 2015 wherein the Government Resolution dated 06.02.1996 was pressed into service by the respondent therein, the court held as under:

"10. I need not assign my own reasons in this regard. It appears that the issue is squarely covered by two decisions of this Court. 10.1. In the case of Hiteshkumar Babubhai Prajapati v. State of Gujarat in Special Civil Application No.13501 of 2014 decided on 19.11.2014, wherein the learned single judge made the following observations:

"06. The Recruitment Rules, which have not been produced, perhaps would provide only eligibility and the conditions and the certificate, which has been referred, has reference to the aspect of actual verification for the class or category to claim benefit of reservation as OBC.

Therefore, it is a matter of only for the purpose of verification and does not refer to qualification or entitlement. Therefore, if the person is selected and otherwise found suitable, he cannot be denied the appointment only on the ground that he has failed to produce such certificate in a particular language as stated in the advertisement or in the formate as per Resolution dated 06.02.1996. It is required to be mentioned that if the person is thrown out on such a technical ground, it would amount to denying such opportunity inspite such policy. Therefore at the most, the petitioner could have been asked to produce such certificate in the proper format as required within stipulated period and opportunity ought to have been given so that it takes care of any apprehension by the

C/SCA/16918/2019 ORDER DATED: 02/02/2022

authority with regard to the creamy layer. Thus, it could have been verified whether the petitioner belongs to creamy layer or not on the basis of the certificate and the appointment could have been issued only after such verification. But opportunity of producing such certificate in proper format could not have been denied and he could not have been rejected only on this ground. Therefore, the rejection of the claim of the petitioner only on the ground that as required under the advertisement, he has failed to produce the creamy layer certificate in a particular formate in a particular language cannot be approved. It is required to be mentioned that many candidates may apply for the jobs in the State Government as well as in the Central Government or the Government corporation. In some of the corporation or the employment in the Union Government, they would require them to submit certificate in English language. Therefore, it is too technical aspect to reject such claim without providing the opportunity of producing the certificate as required.

07. Therefore, the petitioner is permitted to produce creamy layer certificate as per the formate and language as expected as per Government Resolution dated 06.02.1996 within a period of three weeks, which shall be considered by the respondent no.2 and on being satisfied about the aspect of creamy layer, consequence may follow including the appointment to the post of Compounder.

08. With the above observation and direction, the present petition stands disposed of accordingly.

10.2. In the case of Mori Uttamkumar Raisinhbhai v. Gujarat Public Service Commission vide Letters Patent Appeal No.732 of 2013 with Civil Application No.5624 of 2013 decided on 27.03.2014. It appears that issue before the Division Bench was almost identical. The relevant observations made by the Division Bench are quoted as under:-

"8. The short question which arises for consideration for this Court is that in the competitive examination, non-

creamy layer certificate was required to be produced by the appellant-ori. Petitioner for the financial year beginning

C/SCA/16918/2019 ORDER DATED: 02/02/2022

from 1.4.2009 to 31.3.2010 and the last date of depositing the form was 31.3.2010. If the respondents themselves have extended the date for depositing the forms to 6.4.2010 whether the date for obtaining the non-creamy layer certificate would also be extended or the date would remains the same is immaterial or has bearing as certificate was to produced later. It is not disputed that the petitioner has applied and he was issued the non-creamy layer certificate on 5.4.2010 that was after the last date of submission of the form as per the earlier advertisement and he has deposited the form online on 6.4.2010. Therefore, it is absolutely clear that the petitioner has applied for non- creamy layer certificate after 31.3.2010. Though the appellant-ori. Petitioner has stated in the writ petition that he has applied for issuance of non-creamy layer certificate on 25.3.2010, but there is no material to show this fact on record. In our opinion, once the last date for submission of form was 31.3.2010 and the non-creamy layer certificate was deposited for the period between 1.4.2009 to 31.3.2010 and the respondents have extended the date for submission of the form to 6.4.2010, the requirement of depositing the non- creamy layer certificate for the financial year from 1.4.2009 to 31.3.2010 has to be deemed to be extended up to 6.4.2010. It is also not disputed that the petitioner has received the non-creamy layer certificate on 5.4.2010 and has deposited the same on-line along with the form before the date specified in the advertisement.

9. The orders debarring the appellant-petitioner from appearing in the main examination will have to be reviewed as annunciated by the court as to what orders on administrative side would be the subject of the judicial review. In this case, the validity of the order which has been challenged by the appellant-petitioner in the writ petition did not find favour with the learned Single Judge as the ground pressed in the said order of the authority was considered and the learned Single Judge felt unnecessary to analyze the same on the touch-stone of principles for judicial review. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition only on the premise that certificate is bad, which cannot be sustained, in view of the decision of the Honble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Police vs. Gordhandas Bhanji, reported in AIR 1952 SC 16 and

C/SCA/16918/2019 ORDER DATED: 02/02/2022

in case of Mohinder Singh Gil vs. Chief Election Commissioner, reported in (1978)1 SCC 405.

10. The touch-stone on which the judicial review of the orders of the authority impugned are and will have to be seen on the principle annunciated for judicial review in the aforesaid decisions. It cannot be said that this was a policy decision and the appellant-petitioner did not fulfill any of the criteria. Once the time slot was extended, the petitioner should have been permitted to submit the said non-creamy layer certificate as it clearly goes to show that, in fact, the appellant-petitioner, had the non-creamy layer certificate for the year for which of asked for. The same had to be submitted only when the final examination was to be taken, i.e. after July, 2010 and prior to September, 2010, which has been done by the appellant-petitioner. The respondent-authorities have endeavoured to raise that the alleged violation of terms of advertisement was fatal. Though this is despite the fact that the appellant-petitioner has produced the same and gave his explanation for the same. It appears that the authorities have not permitted him to appear in the examination on hyper technical ground which were not germane to the main purpose for which the non-creamy layer certificate was supposed to be produced, and therefore,the principle annunciated would permit us to interfere with the impugned order as the same is bad in eye of law and is also against contours of administrative law, and therefore, even on the touch-stone of those principles, we deem it fit to interfere with the order of the authority as well as the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

11. The brief analysis of the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge brings out the following and we shall now re-ton to the essential factor which shall determine out decision. The learned Single Judge had upturned the submission of the appellant-petitioner on the ground that though Mamlatdar has endorsed on the certificate dated 5.4.2010 that income of father of the appellant-petitioner for the year 2008- 2009 was Rs. 2,40,000/- but then he made further endorsement that income of the father of the appellant-petitioner for the year 2009-2010 was Rs. 3,25,000/-. Such endorsement is found made by the Mamlatdar subsequently as he signed the same

C/SCA/16918/2019 ORDER DATED: 02/02/2022

on 27.9.2010. Not only this but because of the endorsement by the Mamlatdar as regards the income of the father of the appellant-petitioner for the year 2009-2010, the certificate could not be taken to be the certificate for the financial year ending on 31st March, 2009. Therefore, certificate produced by the appellant-petitioner can never said to be non-creamy layer certificate for the relevant financial year ending on 31.3.2009. In our view, the impugned judgment is indubitably one which cannot be sustained. In the case of Rashmi Metaliks Limited and Anr. vs. Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority and Ors., reported in (2013) 10 SCC 95, wherein, the Honble Apex Court has observed in para-16, as under:

16. The following observations found in the celebrated decision in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commr., are relevant to this question:

8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose, J. in Gordhandas Bhanji, (AIR p. 18, para 9)

9.....public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself.

C/SCA/16918/2019 ORDER DATED: 02/02/2022

12. Therefore, it is a fundamental rights of a person to compete in a examination, and therefore, writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was maintainable. In the case of Director of Settlements, A.P. v. M.R. Apparao, reported in (2002) 4 SCC 638, the Honble Apex Court stated that the powers of the High Court under Article 226 though are discretionary and no limits can be placed upon their discretion, they must be exercised along the recognised lines and subject to certain selfimposed limitations. The expression for any other purpose in Article 226, makes the jurisdiction of the High Courts more extensive but yet the courts must exercise the same with certain restraints and within some parameters.

13. As early as in the year 1964, the Honble Apex Court in the case of State of Orissa v. Ram Chandra, reported in AIR 1964 SC 685, has observed as under:

Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the jurisdiction of the High Court is undoubtedly very wide. Appropriate writs can be issued by the High Court under the said Article even for purposes other than the enforcement of the fundamental rights and in that sense, a party who invokes the special jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 is not confined to cases of illegal invasion of his fundamental rights alone. But though the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 is wide in that sense, the concluding words of that Article clearly indicate that before a writ or an appropriate order can be issued in favour of a party, it must be established that the party has a right and the said right is illegal invaded or threatened. The existence of a right is thus the foundation of a petition under Article 226.

14. Thus, the fundamental rights of the appellant-petitioner is just and proper and the learned Single Judge ought to have protected the fundamental rights of the appellant- petitioner and issued a writ or direction.

15. Further, the facts reveal that the non-creamy layer certificate was at least produced and submitted to the authorities by the appellantori. Petitioner for the relevant period, which is at page 19 and also 20. The learned Single Judge despite the fact that there were no pleadings that the

C/SCA/16918/2019 ORDER DATED: 02/02/2022

certificate is interpolated or forged, has come to the conclusion that the certificate produced by the petitioner can never said to be non-creamy layer certificate for the relevant financial year.

16. We are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the observation made by the learned Single Judge in para-10 of the impugned judgment and order, and therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge requires interference on the ground that the appellant-petitioner had already submitted non-creamy layer certificate which is dated 5.4.2010 which was issued prior to the main examination. It was nobodys case that there was any interpolation, and therefore, the finding of facts by the learned Single Judge, that there cannot be said to be a non-creamy layer certificate, at all, requires to be interfered with.

17. It appears that another certificate at page 20 is also issued on 28.8.2010 for the financial year 2008-2009 and the certificate dated 5.4.2010 at Annexure-E at page 19 also for the same financial year 2008-2009 and the income of the family was Rs. 2,40,000 for the financial year 2008-2009 and for the year 2009-2010 was Rs. 3,25,000/-. A reference is made to the order passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 172 of 2010 Annexure-F page 21, and therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained. There is another aspect of the matter about terms and conditions. In instruction no. 15, it is mentioned that the candidate belonging to the SEBC, if not produce non-creamy layer certificate after 1.4.2009, then his candidature shall stands cancelled for appearing in the main examination. What was required to be done was to submit the non-creamy layer certificate for the financial year 2008- 2009 between the period from 1.4.2008 to 31.3.2009, before the main examination is commenced. As far as reply is concerned, on 21.8.2010 the respondent- commission has asked to submit the non-creamy layer certificate, and therefore, the appellant-petitioner had obtained the same and submitted it on 28.8.2010, and therefore, his case ought to have been considered for appearing in the main examination and he cannot be denied for his right. It is brought to our notice that by interim order dated 23.5.2013, the appellant-petitioner was permitted to

C/SCA/16918/2019 ORDER DATED: 02/02/2022

appear in the main examination and therefore the respondent-commission shall also declare his result.

18. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 2.5.2013 passed in Special Civil Application No. 2161 of 2011 is quashed and set aside. The respondent-Commission is also directed to declare the result of the appellant-petitioner along with other contesting candidates who have appeared in the competitive examination."

11. It appears that the petitioner was not able to procure the non- creamy layer certificate as required by the respondents in Parishist K in accordance with the Government Resolution of 1966 between 01.04.2014 and 08.10.2014. The petitioner could procure the certificate in Parishist K on 24.05.2015 which ought to have been issued on 01.04.2014 to 08.10.2014. I am of the view that as an exceptional case and without citing as a precedent, the petitioner should be given one chance and should not lose his appointment when he was otherwise successful in clearing all other tests."

7. Even in the decision rendered in SCA No. 15745 of 2015, this court has held as under:

"12. This Court on earlier occasion had to deal with similarly situated candidates who had been denied appointment on the ground of non-production of non-creamy layer certificate in vernacular language in the case of Hiteshkumar Babubhai K Prajapati (supra). Later on, in the case of Kautukgiri Mahendragiri Gosai (supra) also, this Court referring to earlier decision has held thus:

"7. Having thus heard both the sides, it can be noticed that the petitioner's name figured in the final select list. The only requirement was to verify the testimonials. For that purpose, he was called by the respondent authority. The only hitch is of his having a non-creamy layer certificate issued on 16.4.2015 in English language. Schedule A as per the resolution dated 6.2.1996 specifies the language to be Gujarati. As per the Resolution and Schedule A thereto, for the purpose of recruitment to the services of the State

C/SCA/16918/2019 ORDER DATED: 02/02/2022

Government, the language of such certificate shall be Gujarati, whereas for the services of the Central Government, the language of such certificate shall be English. In the instant case, as could be noticed from the advertisement itself, though the respondent has specified that the non-creamy layer certificate ought to be issued for the period between 1.4.2015 to 6.5.2014 by the competent authority, and the same shall be as per Schedule A, it does not indicate anywhere, either in the Resolution or in Schedule A attached to the advertisement, the language to be used in such certificate.

8. It is always expected that if the respondent authority needed to refer to and rely upon Schedule A, the same ought to have been a part of the advertisement. If not, at least a reference to the Resolution dated 6.2.1996 would suffice. In absence of either of them, when a person approaches the competent authority, which is the Mamlatdar in this case, the language of the State being Gujarati, it was the duty of the concerned authority to see that the Certificate is issued in Gujarati language, more so because the request was not for issuance of certificate in English language. Unless otherwise specified, the language of the State being Gujarati, the authorities concerned would have issued it in Gujarati language.

9. Be that as it may, when the same has been issued and no question is raised with regard to the genuineness of the certificate, there is no reason as to why the candidature of the petitioner be cancelled on this ground. When the petitioner has no control over the authority concerned for non-issuance of the certificate in a particular language, which is the official language of the State, the petitioner cannot be penalized.

Earlier also, such issue had arisen before this Court in Special Civil Application No. 11132 of 2014 and Special Civil Application No.13501 of 2014. This Court had permitted the production of the creamy layer certificate in the language and form required by the respondent. It will be profitable to reproduce the findings and observations made in these matters, in particular, paragraphs Nos. 6, 7 and 8 of the order dated 25.11.2014 passed in Special Civil Application No. 11132 of 2014:

C/SCA/16918/2019 ORDER DATED: 02/02/2022

6. The recruitment rules, which have not been placed, would provide only for the eligibility and conditions. The creamy layer certificate has a reference to the aspect of actual verification for a class or category to claim the benefit of reservation as OBC. Therefore, it is a matter for the purpose of verification and it does not refer to any qualification or entitlement. Again, if the person is selected and otherwise found suitable on proper verification even subsequently, he could be considered or could be denied such appointment on the ground that he has failed to produce such creamy layer certificate in the particular language as stated in the advertisement or in the particulate format. The same could be scrutinized and verified whether he falls in the creamy layer or not. It is required to be mentioned that if the person is thrown out on such technical ground, it would amount to denying an opportunity to the person like the petitioner though otherwise he is eligible and qualified.

7.Therefore, at the most, the petitioner could have been asked to produce such certificate in proper format or language as required within a stipulated period and an opportunity ought to have been given which takes care of the apprehension by the authority with regard to the creamy layer. If he is not covered and belongs to the creamy layer, then his case may not be considered. Thus, it could have been verified whether the petitioner belongs to the creamy layer or not on the basis of the certificate in a particular language and could not have been declined because such a certificate is in English language. The opportunity of producing such certificate in the proper format or language could not have been denied and he could not have been rejected only on such a ground. The rejection of the claim of the petitioner or denying him an opportunity from consideration for the post only on such a ground that he has failed to produce the creamy layer certificate in a particular format or language cannot be approved as it would amount to denying the opportunity or equality of opportunity.

8.It is required to be mentioned that many candidates like the petitioner may be applying for jobs in the

C/SCA/16918/2019 ORDER DATED: 02/02/2022

State as well as in the Union Government as well as government corporations. In some of the corporations or in the Union Government they would require them to submit the certificate in English language. Therefore, it is too technical an aspect to reject such a claim or denying the opportunity of consideration on any such ground."

10. As far as the decision in Special Civil Application No. 10492 of 2015 is concerned, learned Single Judge has relied on the earlier decisions to conclude the issue.

11. At this stage, learned advocate Mr. Manish Patel appearing for respondent No.2 has pointed out that three candidates placed at Sr. No.8, 19 and 61 of the select list, and who belong to Scheduled Tribe and Socially and Economically Backward Class categories respectively, have not joined their duties within the time frame given to them, and therefore, one post is still lying vacant for the petitioner to be accommodated.

13. Today, additional affidavit-in-rejoinder on behalf of petitioner candidate is filed emphasizing that the petitioner had already specified her requirement to the concerned authority. Learned advocate Mr. Dholaria has urged that the father of the petitioner is not educated, and therefore, the request for issuance of non-creamy layer certificate was filled in with the help of someone. However, a copy of such application form indicates that the request was made by the petitioner to get a certificate for the purpose of employment within the State of Gujarat. The non-creamy layer certificate was issued on 9.4.2015 in English language, although the specific request to the Mamlatdar was to issue such certificate as socially and economically backward class candidate to get employment with the State of Gujarat. It can be noticed from the standard form which has been filled in with the signature of the petitioner that on the top of the application it is written that this certificate is to be issued in English language. According to the petitioner this is not her handwriting.

14. When a specific request was made in a standard form made available to all the candidates, who are desirous of getting non- creamy layer certificate for a specific period, the onus is on the authority concerned to point out as to why such certificate is given in English language. It is known to all officers sitting on such posts

C/SCA/16918/2019 ORDER DATED: 02/02/2022

in the State of Gujarat that such a certificate for socially and economically backward class candidate is to be issued in vernacular language when the employment is sought with the State Government. Unless otherwise specified, Gujarati is the language of the State. As there is a material difference of income criteria in the certificate required for employment in the Central Government and State Government, the language in which the certificate is issued would also have a bearing. At the same time, the responsibility of the candidate gets over, who performs his part or role by making such request for a certificate in a standard form prescribed to the authority, it is thus the responsibility of the concerned authority to issue appropriate certificate either in English language or in vernacular language depending upon nature of employment. If employment is sought with the Central Government, the authority concerned is required to issue the non- creamy layer certificate in English language, and if employment is sought within the State of Gujarat, the certificate must be issued in Gujarati language.

15. As can be noticed thus, even the last limb of submission on the part of the learned advocate for the respondent Panchayat also fails here. It is apparent from the record that the certificate sought is for employment with the State Government and in the standard form prescribed by the State. Non-issuance of certificate in vernacular language and issuance of the same in English language surely must not result in jeopardizing the interest of the person seeking employment for no fault of hers. Coupled with this, one may not be oblivious that at the time of verifying the testimonials no flaw was pointed out to the petitioner. In this view of the matter, to say on the part of the respondent No.2 District Panchayat Selection Committee that the exclusion of the petitioner was justifiable is simply unacceptable. As has already been held herein before, by two different judgments, this Court has negated such contention of the authorities. It is to be held hence that at the time of selection the respondent authority without verifying all these aspects acted unmindfully and mechanically, and denied appointment without even giving an opportunity of explaining the situation. Resultantly, the action deserves to be quashed.

16. It is conveyed to this Court that the petitioner belongs to socially and economically backward class. In the provisional recommendation list, which has been produced before this Court, her name is reflected in the column of category general/SEBC at

C/SCA/16918/2019 ORDER DATED: 02/02/2022

Sr. No. 10. The respondent authority while being directed to give appointment to the petitioner within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and order, shall also consider if there are any other posts vacant on account of any candidate not joining on the post advertised so that respondent No.5 may continue to serve. Otherwise, the respondent No.5 shall vacate the seat as the petitioner is more meritorious than respondent No.5."

8. Accordingly, no further independent reasons are required to be assigned in the present case.

9. The petition is accordingly allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Office Superintendent. At this stage, Mr. Dastoor states that he foregoes his claim for being considered for the post of Assistant Head Clerk and would claim his candidature only for the post of Office Superintendent. The respondents are directed to accept the certificate issued by Mamlatdar, Ghatlodia (English language) submitted at the time of document verification on 17.06.2019 and consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Office Superintendent, if otherwise eligible on merits. If the petitioner is eligible for the post in question, appropriate consequential orders be issued forthwith considering the fact that there are still posts vacant.

(BIREN VAISHNAV, J) DIVYA