Gujarat High Court
P B Zala vs State Of Gujarat on 18 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6517/2012 ORDER DATED: 18/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6517 of 2012
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6518 of 2012
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6519 of 2012
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6520 of 2012
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6583 of 2012
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6584 of 2012
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6588 of 2012
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6590 of 2012
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6591 of 2012
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6592 of 2012
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6593 of 2012
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6596 of 2012
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6598 of 2012
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6626 of 2012
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6919 of 2012
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6920 of 2012
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6921 of 2012
==========================================================
P B ZALA AND OTHERS
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR BHUVNESH GAHLOT for MR NK MAJMUDAR(430) for the Petitioners
MR C S MOHANAN(6814) for the Respondent(s) No.
13,15,17,18,19,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,36
MS ROOPAL R PATEL(1360) for the Respondent(s) No. 4
MR HENIL M SHAH, MR PARTH PATEL, MS DHARITRI PANCHOLI AND
MR JEET JOTANGIYA, AGPs for the Respondents - State Authorities.
RULE NOT RECD BACK for the Respondent(s) No.
1,10,11,12,14,16,2,20,21,22,3,35,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,5,6,7,8,9
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 18/07/2025
Page 1 of 10
Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 19 00:30:34 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6517/2012 ORDER DATED: 18/07/2025
undefined
ORAL ORDER
1. All these petitioners are similarly situated persons
challenging the combined seniority list and therefore, all
these petitions are heard and decided together with consent
of the learned advocates. As suggested, Special Civil
Application No.6584 of 2012 is taken as lead matter.
Therefore, the prayers of that petition read as under.
"31 The petitioner, therefore, prays that
this Hon'ble Court be pleased to -
(A) admit this petition;
(B) issue appropriate writ, order or
direction holding that the respondents had no
right or authority to apply the criteria of
promotion other than the one which have
been provided under Rule-3(A) of Foreman
Instructors Recruitment Rules published vide
Notification dated 29.9.2008 as well as
criteria prescribed through statutory rules,
precisely Rule-2(a) of Recruitment Rules
published vide Notification dated 16.12.2009
and be pleased to quash and set aside the
action of respondent authorities of resorting
to sole criterion of seniority for giving
promotions as illegal, illogical, discriminatory,
arbitrary, violative of Article-14 of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6517/2012 ORDER DATED: 18/07/2025
undefined
Constitution of India and violative of Rule-3A
of the Notification dated 29.9.2008 and
violative of Rule-2(a) of the Notification dated
16.12.2009;
(C) issue appropriate writ, order or
direction and be pleased to quash and set
aside the order dated 27.7.2011 as the same
is illegal, illogical, violative of Article-14 of
the Constitution of India and violative of
Recruitment Rules and the same have been
issued on the basis of sole criteria of
seniority as the same have been issued in
violation of criteria of promotion prescribed
through the relevant rules;
(D) issue appropriate writ, order or
direction and be pleased to quash and set
aside the Circular dated 1.4.2009 annexed at
Annexure-E by which the decision was taken
to prepare a Common Seniority list for all
the categories of posts which have been
mentioned at Sr.Nos.1 to 9 in Appendix-I of
the Foreman Instructors Recruitment Rules,
as the same is not in consonance with the
Recruitment Rules prescribed through
Notification dated 29.9.2008 as well as
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6517/2012 ORDER DATED: 18/07/2025
undefined
Recruitment Rules published through
Notification dated 16.12.2009, therefore, the
said Seniority list may be quashed and set
aside;
(E) issue appropriate writ, order or
direction and be pleased to hold that action
of the respondent authorities of publication of
Common Seniority List through Circular dated
1.4.2009 before enactment or before
enforcement of Recruitment Rules for the post
of Principal, Class-II which came to be
brought into existence vide Notification dated
16.12.2009 be held as illegal, discriminatory,
arbitrary and the same may be held as
malafide exercise of powers and the same
may be quashed and set aside;
(F) issue appropriate writ, order or
direction and be pleased to direct the
respondent authorities to prescribe/publish the
regulations, rules prescribing norms and
parameters for judging / assessing "proved,
merits and efficiency" of a candidate as per
the statutory requirement of Rule-3A of the
Recruitment Rules published vide Notification
dated 29.9.2008 as well as per Rule-2(a) of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6517/2012 ORDER DATED: 18/07/2025
undefined
the Notification dated 16.12.2009 and be
pleased to hold that the promotions given on
the post of Principal Class-II without
prescribing or declaring any criteria or
parameters for assessing or judging the
proved, merit and efficiency of the candidates
be declared as illegal, arbitrary, void ad-initio,
nonest and the respondent authorities be
directed to undertake de novo procedure for
filling-up the posts of Principal, Class-II after
prescribing norms/parameters/criteria for
judging / assessing the criterion of proved,
merits and efficiency;
(G) issue appropriate writ, order or
direction and be pleased to direct the
concerned respondent authorities to grant
deemed date of promotion to the petitioner
and the petitioner may be granted promotion
on the post of Principal, Class-II from the
date of order and the respondent may be
directed to grant all consequential benefits to
the petitioner;
(H) grant interim order and be pleased to
restrain the respondent authorities from
filling-up the posts of Principal, Class-II by
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6517/2012 ORDER DATED: 18/07/2025
undefined
resorting to any another criterion i.e. other
than proved, merits and efficiency as provided
under Recruitment Rules pending admission
and final disposal of this petition;"
2. It is also pointed out that the litigation is rested
after the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court
recorded on Letters Patent Appeal No.879 of 2010 arising
from the order passed in Special Civil Application 488 of
2010.
3.1 Therefore, relevant paras : 4 and 5 of the order
passed in Special Civil Application No.488 of 2010 read as
under.
"4. Perusal of the Foreman Instructor in
the Gujarat Skill Training Service Class-III
Recruitment Rules, 2008 would clearly show
that they are made to provide for recruitment
to the post of Foreman Instructors in Class-
III by promotion and by direct recruitment.
In order to be eligible for such promotion,
apart from proved merit and efficiency,
experience of five years in the cadre of
Supervisor Instructor in Class-III, passing of
prescribed departmental examination and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6517/2012 ORDER DATED: 18/07/2025
undefined
qualifying examination for computer
knowledge are required. Even after
appointment on promotion, the candidate is
required to undergo such training and pass
such examination as may be prescribed by
the Government. Such provisions make it
abundantly clear that mere inclusion of any
posts in Annexure-1 to the Rules, at par with
Foreman Instructor, does not, by itself, make
a candidate eligible for promotion to the post
of Foreman Instructor Class-III. And, if an
employee in any of the cadres or posts
included in Annexure-1 satisfies the aforesaid
eligibility criteria, there is no valid reason to
exclude him from the selection process for
promotion to the post of Foreman Instructor
Class-III. Therefore, the case and the
contention of the petitioners are misconceived
and wholly devoid of any merit. Besides that,
as recently reiterated by the Supreme Court
in Union of India v. Pushparani [(2008) 9
SCC 242] in para 37, it is the settled legal
position that matters relating to creation and
abolition of posts, formation and
structuring/restructuring of cadres, prescribing
the source /mode of recruitment and
qualifications, criteria of selection, evaluation
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6517/2012 ORDER DATED: 18/07/2025
undefined
of service records of employees fall within the
exclusive domain of the employer. What steps
should be taken for improving efficiency of
the administration is also the preserve of the
employer. The power of judicial review can be
exercised in such matters only if it is shown
that the action of the employer is contrary to
any constitutional or statutory provision or is
patently arbitrary or is vitiated by mala
fides. The court cannot sit in appeal over the
judgment of the employer and ordain that a
particular post be filled by direct recruitment
or promotion or by transfer. The court has no
role in determining the methodology of
recruitment or laying down the criteria of
selection. It is also not open to the court to
make comparative evaluation of merit of the
candidates. The court cannot suggest the
manner in which the employer should
structure or restructure the cadres for the
purpose of improving efficiency of
administration.
5. Keeping in view the above salutory
dicta and inapplicability in the facts of the
present case of the aforesaid judgments relied
upon for the petitioners, the impugned rules
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6517/2012 ORDER DATED: 18/07/2025
undefined
or inclusion of three categories of employees
in the annexure to the rules cannot be set
aside as arbitrary or unconstitutional.
Therefore, the petition is summarily
dismissed."
3.2 Further, the relevant para : 4 of the order passed
in Letters Patent Appeal No.879 of 2010 reads as under.
"4. This Court is of the view that the
reasons for which the learned Single Judge
has turned down the contentions of the
petitioner do not require any interference at
the hands of this Court. Besides what is
required to be appreciated is that the
promotion to the post of Principal Class-II
and other posts mentioned therein is by way
of promotion of a person of proved merit and
efficiency. That being so, inclusion of any
cadre cannot be said to be adversely affecting
the promotional prospects of the person,
represented by the appellant-original
petitioner association. One can understand if
the criteria for the promotion was either
'seniority' alone or 'seniority-cum-merit', then
in that case, it could have been argued that
the promotional avenues /prospects stand
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6517/2012 ORDER DATED: 18/07/2025
undefined
adversely affected if more number of persons
are brought in the consideration zone, but if
the criteria is that of proved merit and
efficiency, this possibility is ruled out and
therefore, in addition to the reasons given by
the learned Single Judge, contention of the
appellants-original petitioners is found without
any merit. In the result, the appeal fails and
the same is dismissed."
4. In view of above, the prayers would not survive
and the petitions become infructuous. These petitions,
therefore, are disposed of as having become infructuous. Rule
is discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J)
M.H. DAVE
