Gujarat High Court
District Development Officer vs Laxmiben Becharbhai Leuva on 19 August, 2023
Bench: N.V.Anjaria
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/309/2021 ORDER DATED: 19/08/2023
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 309 of 2021
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6406 of 2018
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR INTERIM RELIEF) NO. 1 of 2020
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 309 of 2021
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 354 of 2021
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2423 of 2018
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR INTERIM RELIEF) NO. 1 of 2020
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 354 of 2021
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2423 of 2018
==========================================================
DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
Versus
LAXMIBEN BECHARBHAI LEUVA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR DJ BHATT(164) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR. DHAVAL G BAROT(6546) for the Respondent(s) No. 10,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 11
RAJDEEPSINH R JODDHA(8855) for the Respondent(s) No. 10,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
SANKET K PANDYA(9451) for the Respondent(s) No. 10,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE
SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
Date : 19/08/2023
COMMON ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA
AGARWAL)
1. Since both these appeals arise out of the common order dated
20.01.2020, passed in Special Civil Application No. 6406 of 2018 and
the allied matters whereby the learned Single Judge set aside the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/309/2021 ORDER DATED: 19/08/2023
undefined
orders of reversion dated 01.02.2018 and 03.02.2018, from the post of
Mukhya Sevika to Aanganwadi Worker of two of the writ-petitioners
herein, the appeals been heard together and being decided by this
common order.
2. Heard Mr. Munshaw, learned Advocate appearing for the
appellants, Mr. Bhatt, learned Advocate for Respondent No.1, learned
AGP for Respondent No.2-State and Mr. Barot, learned Advocate for
Respondent Nos. 3 to 10, who have been impleaded as party
Respondents in the present appeal, pursuant to the order of this Court.
3. The brief facts necessary to decide the controversy are that both
the writ-petitioners, who were appointed as Aanganwadi Workers in the
year 1998, were considered in the exercise for promotion / nomination
to the post of Mukhya Sevika and since they were found eligible, they
were promoted to the post of Mukhya Sevika vide order dated
01.07.2016. At the time of promotion / nomination, there was no dispute
about the qualifications or the eligibility of both the writ-petitioners.
4. However, challenging the said exercise of promotion / nomination
of the two writ-petitioners herein, one Savitaben Dineshbhai filed
Special Civil Application No. 12463 of 2016, on the ground that she was
placed higher in merits and, therefore, deserved promotion / nomination
on the post of Mukhya Sevika, as against three incumbents, whose
names were recommended for promotion. The aforesaid writ-petition
came to be allowed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated
14.11.2017, whereby the order of the District Development Officer dated
01.07.2016 was set aside, with the observation that the case of
Savitaben Dineshbhai had been overlooked for being promoted /
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/309/2021 ORDER DATED: 19/08/2023
undefined
nominated on the post of Mukhya Sevika, despite the fact that she was
higher in merit in the select list.
5. The reason given by the learned Single Judge for setting aside
the order of the District Development Officer dated 01.07.2016 was that
the claim of Savitaben Dineshbhai for promotion could not have been
ignored for the reason that she did not possess 'CCC certificate' on the
date when she was to be promoted on the post of Mukhya Sevika, in
view that in the Government Resolution dated 04.05.2016, there was a
stipulation that the selected candidates can pass 'CCC examination'
within one year of their selection.
6. It seems that after remand of the matter, a fresh exercise for
promotion / nomination was initiated by the department and in the said
exercise, all those candidates, who were initially kept out of the zone of
consideration, were also included by preparation of a fresh merit list,
which was not permissible. We may reiterate that while setting aside the
order dated 01.07.2016, this Court remanded the matter for
consideration of the case of Savitaben, on the ground that she was
placed higher in the merit list, than those three incumbents, who were
recommended, included in the order of promotion dated 01.07.2016.
7. On a specific query made by this Court, Mr. Munshaw, learned
Advocate appearing for the appellants tried to defend the action of the
appellants in preparation of the fresh merit list, on the premise that the
candidates, who were initially excluded from the zone of consideration
for not possessing the 'CCC certificate' were higher in merit than the
writ petitioners herein . However, he could not answer the query of the
Court that the merit list prepared by the appellants in the first exercise of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/309/2021 ORDER DATED: 19/08/2023
undefined
promotion / nomination, which led to passing of the order dated
01.07.2016, has attained finality and was not quashed as there was no
challenge to the same by any of the Respondents herein. The
interference made by this Court in the matter of claim of Savitaben was
on account of the fact that she was placed higher in merit than the three
candidates, recommended in the order of promotion dated 01.07.2016.
There is no dispute about the fact that two writ-petitioners herein were
included in the list of promotion / nomination, which led to the passing of
the order dated 01.07.2016, as there was no dispute with regard to the
qualifications possessed by both of them, as noted herein above.
8. In our considered opinion, the learned Single Judge has rightly
set aside the order of reversion dated 01.02.2018 and 03.02.2018,
noticing that the same were passed, solely on the basis of the decision
rendered in Special Civil Application No. 12463 of 2016. It is, further,
recorded therein that when Misc. Civil Application No. 1 of 2018 in
Special Civil Application No. 12463 of 2016 was filed by Savitaben for
implementation of the directions issued in Paragraph Nos. '6' and '7' of
the order dated 14.11.2017, it was dismissed vide order dated
19.03.2018.
9. Thus, the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge that
once the claim of Savitaben, at whose instance the promotion order of
the two writ-petitioners dated 01.07.2016 was set aside, was not
considered and was not given promotion, there was no occasion for
reversion of the writ-petitioners by passing the orders of reversion dated
01.02.2018 and 03.02.2018.
10. Noticing the above, we are required to reiterate that the act of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/309/2021 ORDER DATED: 19/08/2023
undefined
appellants in conducting a fresh exercise of promotion / nomination by
preparation of a fresh merit list, in the garb of the order dated
14.11.2017, passed in Special Civil Application No. 12463 of 2016, was
illegal. In any case, once the merit list for promotion / nomination was
finalized, which led to the passing of the order dated 01.07.2016, on
account of the remand of the matter, at the instance of one of the
candidates, namely Savitaben, who was placed higher in merit list than
the writ petitioners herein, it was not open to the appellants to initiate a
fresh exercise and prepare a fresh merit list by inclusion of other
candidates.
11. So far as the Respondent Nos. 3 to 10 are concerned, we may
record that, at that time of consideration of their claim for promotion /
nomination, they were not considered and excluded from merit list, on
the ground that they did not possess 'CCC examination' certificate, but,
none of them came forward to challenge the merit list leading to passing
of the promotion order dated 01.07.2016. The judgment and order dated
14.11.2017, rendered in Special Civil Application No. 12463 of 2016,
was confined to the case of Savitaben, i.e. it is not a judgment in rem,
but in personam, whereby, the matter was remanded for giving due
consideration to the claim of Savitaben for promotion / nomination. It
was, therefore, improper on the part of the appellants or for that matter
for Respondent Nos. 3 to 10 to plead that in order to accommodate all
the candidates, who were otherwise higher in merit than Savitaben, but
did not possess 'CCC certificate', the fresh exercise of promotion was
conducted.
12. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any infirmity in the order
passed by the learned Single Judge. Both the appeals are, hereby,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/309/2021 ORDER DATED: 19/08/2023
undefined
DISMISSED. The appellants shall give effect to the order of promotion
dated 01.07.2016, with all consequential benefits to the writ-petitioners,
herein, strictly in accordance with the order passed by the learned
Single Judge as early as possible and preferably within the period of
EIGHT WEEKS from today.
13. In view of the disposal of the main matters, Civil Applications shall
not survive and the same also stands DISPOSED OF accordingly.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ )
(N.V.ANJARIA, J)
UMESH/-
