Gujarat High Court
Monali Nitinkumar Joshi vs State Of Gujarat on 18 January, 2023
Bench: Niral R. Mehta
C/LPA/1495/2022 ORDER DATED: 18/01/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1495 of 2022
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6444 of 2021
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 2 of 2022
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1495 of 2022
==========================================================
MONALI NITINKUMAR JOSHI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS MAMTA R VYAS(994) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
MR. MANAN MEHTA, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER/PP for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA
Date : 18/01/2023
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA)
Heard learned advocate Ms. Mamta Vyas for the appellant-original
petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Manan Mehta
for the respondent State and its authorities.
2. The appellant-petitioner filed Special Civil Application seeking the
following declaratory reliefs and directions,
"...to held that the action of the authority of not adding the marks of
M.Ed. of the petitioner for recruitment of Higher Secondary Teacher is
bad and illegal and further direct the respondent No.2 to add the marks
of B. Ed. of the petitioner and to show her name at appropriate place in
C/LPA/1495/2022 ORDER DATED: 18/01/2023
the merit and on that basis, she may be given choice of place and further
be pleased direct the respondent No.2 and 3 to give appointment to the
petitioner at Vadodara or any other place where the petitioner as per the
merit of the petitioner will all consequential benefits."
2.1 Learned single Judge as per impugned judgment and order dated
27.6.2022 passed in common in the cognate Special Civil Applications,
allowed the petition of the appellant thus,
"Petition is allowed. It is declared that the petitioner holds merit of
61.07 and therefore in accordance with this merit that was in the
provisional merit list first prepared the petitioner is entitled to be
appointed on the post of Shikshan Sahayak in English subject.
Respondents are directed to appoint the petitioner on the post in
question considering the degree as valid. Connected Civil Application
also stands disposed of. "
2.2 The appellant stands partially aggrieved by the said direction of
learned single Judge. The grievance is that learned single Judge did not
grant the date of appointment from the date when less meritorious
candidate was given appointment and further that the directions ought to
have been issued to appoint the petitioner from March, 2021 by posting
the appellant-petitioner at Vadodara according to her merit.
2.3 It appears that seeking such clarification in the operative directions
as above, the appellant-petitioner had moved a note for speaking-to-
minutes before learned single Judge, which was not accepted as per order
dated 7.7.2022.
3. The petitioner applied for the post of Sikshan Sahayak in English
subject in female category and secured merit at 61.01. The merit of the
petitioner was reduced subsequently to 56.94 in light of instructions in
C/LPA/1495/2022 ORDER DATED: 18/01/2023
clause 23 of the advertisement.
3.1 Learned single Judge interpreted clause 23 in favour of the
petitioner by observing,
"Reading clause 23 would indicate that the sufficiency of the petitioner
having done her M.Ed from the concerned college/University was
satisfied on the basis of the documents which she had produced which
are referred to hereinabove and therefore the denial of appointment to
the petitioner on the post of Shikshan Sahayak in the subject of English
was bad. The petitioner is entitled to be considered for appointment and
so appointed to the post of Shikshan Sahayak in the subject of English
considering merit 61.07 instead of 56.94."
3.2 The relief was accordingly granted.
4. The only submission of learned advocate for the appellant was that
the appointment was directed to be given by learned single Judge from
the date when the candidate of less merit mark was appointed and that the
petitioner ought to have been posted at Vadodara.
4.1 On the other hand, learned Assistant Government pleader defended
the order of learned single Judge.
5. As far as the posting aspect is concerned, it was in the realm of the
discretion of the authorities. Even otherwise the petitioner could not
claim any right to be posted at a particular place. After selecting the
candidate, the posting is the domain of the employing authority
concerned.
5.1 The other grievance about the date of apportionment is concerned,
C/LPA/1495/2022 ORDER DATED: 18/01/2023
it has no substance inasmuch as what is observed by learned single Judge
is that the petitioner is entitled to be appointed on the post of Sikshan
Sahayak in accordance with her merit in the select list.
6. The court is not inclined to exercise Letters Patent jurisdiction.
7. The Letters Patent Appeal is meritless and the same is dismissed.
In view of dismissal the Appeal, no orders are required to be
passed in the Civil Application. It stands disposed of accordingly.
(N.V.ANJARIA, J)
(NIRAL R. MEHTA,J)
C.M. JOSHI
