Gujarat High Court

Yograjsinh Pravinsinh Rana vs State Of Gujarat on 24 January, 2022

Bench: Biren Vaishnav

    C/SCA/19957/2021                             JUDGMENT DATED: 24/01/2022




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

              R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 19957 of 2021
                                  With
              R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 19958 of 2021
                                  With
              R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 19960 of 2021
                                  With
              R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 19961 of 2021

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV

==========================================================

1    Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
     to see the judgment ?

2    To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

3    Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
     of the judgment ?

4    Whether this case involves a substantial question
     of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
     of India or any order made thereunder ?

==========================================================
                       YOGRAJSINH PRAVINSINH RANA
                                 Versus
                           STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ROHIT N PATEL(6045) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
MR. KURVEN DESAI, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER/PP(99) for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

    CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV

                             Date : 24/01/2022

                            ORAL JUDGMENT

1 Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned

C/SCA/19957/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/01/2022

advocates appearing for the respective parties, the petitions are taken up

for final hearing today.

2 In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the

case of the petitioners is that this Court in the earlier round of litigation in

Special Civil Application No. 1984 of 2020 and allied matters, by an

order dated 28.01.2020, passed the following order:

"1. In these petitions, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the prayers of the petitioners read as under:

"(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondent to declare that the petitioner is entitled to be appointed to the category of Unarmed Constable and considered his seniority from the date of his initial appointment;

(C) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring that the petitioner is entitled to appear in the written examinations for the post of PSI to be conducted by the respondent and also be pleased to declare that the petitioner is entitled for all other benefits including the benefit of seniority etc. as given to the Unarmed Constables;"

2. In similar set of facts and circumstances, this Court has passed the orders on 29.11.2018 in Special Civil Application No.17651 of 2016 and allied matter and on 27.04.2016 in Special Civil Application No.5212 of 2007 and allied matters.

3. The prayers of the petitioners are that the respondents be directed that the petitioners are entitled to be appointed in the category of Unarmed Constables and their seniority be considered from the appropriate date.

4. Perusal of the order passed by this Court on 29.11.2018 in Special Civil Application No.17651 of 2016 and allied matter is relevant, which is reproduced hereunder:

"Heard learned advocate Mr.Rohit Patel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.K.M.Antani for the respondent State and its authorities.

C/SCA/19957/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/01/2022

2. By filing this petition, the petitioners 20 in numbers, have prayed to direct the respondents to treat the petitioners as entitled to be appointed to the Unarmed Division of Constabulary in the district of Kutch and to have reckoned their seniority from the year 1996 in the Unarmed Division. The petitioners have further prayed to direct the respondents to appoint and post them in the Unarmed Division of the Constabulary. The case of the petitioner pleaded in the petition inter alia is that recruitment of Police Constable in the district of Kutch was undertaken pursuant to public advertisement published on 17.08.1996. In the recruitment process, a common test was conducted on 09.09.1996 by the department. The petitioners have further stated that they participated in the process and also attended the common test. The petitioners came to be selected and appointment letters were issued.

3. The case of the petitioners is that in the said recruitment process and in the said advertisement, it was not specified whether the recruitment was going to be done for the Armed Constabulary or in respect of the Unarmed Constabulary. It is the allegation of the petitioners that the respondent authorities adopted pick and choose policy and the candidates who were blueeyed candidates came to be offered appointment in the Unarmed Division, whereas the petitioners came to be appointed in the Armed Constabulary. The petitioners have relied on orders passed in Special Civil Application No.5206 of 2007 in which the similar prayer was prayed for. Another Special Civil Application No.5212 of 2007 is also referred in which this Court passed order on 27.04.2016 permitting the petitioners to make a representation, which representation came to be ultimately decided in favour of the petitioners and those petitioners were allocated the post of Unarmed Police Constable pursuant to filing of the contempt petition by them. It is the case of the petitioners that they deserve similar treatment.

4. Yet another aspect was raised by learned advocate for the petitioners submitting that unless their appointments are made in the Unarmed Constabulary, they would lose the chance to be selected as Police Sub Inspector for which the examination is going to take place in the near future and the last date for submission of the application form is 15.12.2018. Be that as it may.

5. By filing additional affidavit, the petitioners have highlighted about the earlier litigation filed by similarly situated petitioners whose grievances were ultimately redressed according to the petitioner.

6. In view of the aforesaid scenario, the case of the petitioners deserves to be considered at the hands of the respondent authorities. The petitioners' case for being offered posting in Unarmed Constabulary in the district of Kutch may be considered by the competent authority of the respondent having regard to the attendant facts and the policy considerations by

C/SCA/19957/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/01/2022

the State Government and necessary decision shall be taken immediately and in any case on or before 15.12.2018.

7. With these observations, however, without going into the merits of the case, the petitions stand disposed of. Direct service is permitted."

5. Under the circumstances, the respondents are hereby directed to consider the case of the petitioners in context of the prayers and the facts made out in each petition. The decision shall be taken on the basis of representation that each petitioner shall make by furnishing a fresh copy of this petition to the respondents within a week from today. The competent authority shall take a decision within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.