Gujarat High Court
Rameshchandra Hargovinddas Bhatt vs State Of Gujarat on 24 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16644/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16644 of 2017
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
RAMESHCHANDRA HARGOVINDDAS BHATT & ANR.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
DECEASED LITIGANT THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS/ REPRESTENTATIVES
for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR. VISHAL P THAKKER(7079) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1.1
MS. SURBHI BHATI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 24/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner for
seeking the following reliefs:
"(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue a writ of
mandamus, or a writ in the nature of mandamus, or any
other appropriate writ, order the to direction, or
respondents to operate the select list, wherein the petitioner
had secured no. 1 position, and regularize the services of
the petitioner with retrospective effect and grant the
benefits of regular services, followed by the pay revisions
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16644/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2025
undefined
available in the interest of justice;
(B) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue a writ of
mandamus, or a writ in the nature of mandamus, or any
other appropriate
writ, order or direction, to the respondents to operate the
select list, wherein the petitioner had secured no. 1
position, and regularize the services of the petitioner with
retrospective effect and grant the benefits of regular
services, followed by the pay revisions available in the
interest of justice, pending the admission, hearing and final
disposal of this petition;
(C) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue a writ of
mandamus, or a writ in the nature of mandamus, or any
other appropriate writ, order or direction, to the
respondents to consider the services of the petitione5r
regularized 27.11.1996; as on
(D) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to direct the
respondent authority to pay the difference of salary as per
the prevalent pay commission from 27.11.1996, as the
services of the petitioner are entitled for regularization, as
per the select list of 27.11.1996, along with interest in the
interest of justice;
(E) YOUR LORDSHIPSbe pleased to direct the respondent
authority to pay the difference of salary as per the
prevalent pay commission from 27.11.1996, as the services
of the petitioner are entitled for regularization, as per the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16644/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2025
undefined
select list of 27.11.1996, along with interest in the interest
of justice; pending the admission, hearing and final disposal
of this petition;
(F) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to direct the respondents
to pay the gratuity, pension, and all other consequential
benefits flowing out of the service of the petitioner in the
interest of justice;
(G) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to direct the
respondents to pay the gratuity, pension, and all other
consequential benefits flowing out of the service of the
petitioner in the interest of justice, pending the admission,
hearing and final disposal of this petition;
(H) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to grant such other and
further reliefs as deemed fit in the interest of Justice;"
2. Brief facts as stated in the memo of the petition
are as under:
2.1 It is the case of the petitioner in this petition that
the petitioner has approached this Hon'ble Court praying
intervention of this Court, or issue any other appropriate
writ, order or direction, to the respondents to implement
/ execute the select list dtd. 27.11.1996, flowing out of
the interview regarding appointment on the regular post
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16644/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2025
undefined
of wireman, in the office of the respondent no. 2
employer. It is pertinent to note that, the post on which
the petitioner was working, and the post in question is
perinneal in nature and was required by the employer
respondents, and the petitioner was at sr. no. 1 of the
said select list which was not operated /executed by the
respondent, and thus have discriminated the petitioner of
regularization of service after being selected in the
interview, in contravention of various decisions of the
Hon'ble Apex Court and also as per the Articles 14 &
19 of the Constitution of India, and further pay the
difference of salary as per the prevailing pay scale, and
also pay the petitioner to the petitioner following the
order of reinstatement, as well be pleased to direct the
respondent authority to pay the difference of salary as
per the prevalent from commission pay 27.11.1996.
2.2 It is further the case of the petitioner in this
petition that the petitioner joined the office of the
respondent as a daily wager wireman on 01.05.1986 on
the regularly sanctioned post, and the work taken from
the petitioner was perennial in nature. The respondent
employers had been showing the work taken from the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16644/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2025
undefined
petitioner as that of five hours a day, but in fact, the
petitioner used to work for more than eight hours a day
and the petitioner was being paid only Rs. 300 per
month after working for more than eight hours a day
with the respondents. It is further the case of the
petitioner in this petition that the post on which the
petitioner had been working for all this years is
permanent in nature, and the work done by the
petitioner was very much required by the respondents
and also there was a vacancy for the post on which the
petitioner had been working, in the existing setup of the
respondent, and the same is very much clear from the
reply of the respondents to the RTI application filed by
the petitioner seeking for certain information regarding
the post in question. It is further the case of the
petitioner in this petition that the respondents have
given partial reply to the information sought by the
petitioner. It is thus, crystal clear, that there was a
requirement for the work of the petitioner, and that
there was also a post for the same, in the existing setup
of the respondent, and that the pay grade for the post
was of 950-1400.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16644/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2025
undefined
2.3 It is further the case of the petitioner in this
petition that the services of the petitioner ought to have
been regularized by the respondents in the existing set
up, which was having a sanctioned post of wireman, in
the pay grade of 950-1400 and that too very much in
the year 1996, as per the result sheet of 27.11.1996,
wherein the present petitioner had been selected at no. 1
position out of all 26 candidates that had appeared. It is
further the case of the petitioner in this petition that
thus the act of the respondents, ignoring their own
interview results, speaks the volumes of the high
headedness of the respondents and discriminatory practice
of the respondent, thereby denying the petitioner herein
of his legitimate rights. It is further the case of the
petitioner in this petition that the petitioner reached the
age of superannuation and considering the services of the
petitioner, the petitioner is entitled for all the
consequential benefits flowing out of his services
including pension, gratuity, and all other consequential
benefits flowing out of the services of the petitioner.
2.4 It is further the case of the petitioner in this
petition that hence, the petitioner herein had been
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16644/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2025
undefined
selected as a regular employee n the year 1996 itself,
but the same was not processed in the true spirits.
Hence this inaction of the respondents, needs be termed
bad in law by this Hon'ble Court and the petitioner is
required to be granted all the benefits available to a
regular employee, plus the arrears of such benefits as
per the latest prevailing pay scale, along with time to
time increments, and interest accrued thereon on the
delayed payment of such legitimate rights of the
petitioner. It is further the case of the petitioner in this
petition that many workman under the respondents have
been absorbed in the regular setup, and are getting the
benefits of regular employees, some of them were even
juniors to the present petitioner and have been granted
permanency, who have been working less than the
petitioner's working hours and span of service and are
getting regular pay as per the grades since then, and
the present petitioner has been ignored for the benefits
for the reasons best known to the respondents, and with
a biased intention. Hence, the present petition has been
preferred.
3. Heard Mr. Vishal Thakker, learned advocate for the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16644/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2025
undefined
petitioner No.1 and Ms. Surbhi Bhati, learned Assistant
Government Pleader for the respondent - State.
4. Mr. Vishal Thakker, learned advocate for the
petitioner No.1 has submitted that the petitioner is
seeking direction to the respondents to implement /
execute the select list dated 27.11.1996 flowing out of
the interview regarding appointment on the regular post
employer and the petitioner is working on the post,
which is perennial in nature and was required by the
employer respondents, and the petitioner was at Sr. No.
1 of the said select list, which was not operated
/executed by the respondent, and thus has discriminated
the petitioner for regularization of service after being
selected in the interview, which is in contravention of
various decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and in
violation of Articles 14 & 19 of the Constitution of India.
He has relied on the judgment of this Court in the case
of Vinodkumar Rajabhai Rathod Vs. State of Gujarat and
Others reported in 2005 (2) GLR 1274, and has
submitted that the Government could not deny the
appointment on the ground that the validity of select list
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16644/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2025
undefined
has lapsed. He has further submitted that in view of
circular issued by the department on 26.12.1980, the
petitioner, who is working with the respondent, is
required to be absorbed in the department and, therefore,
he has submitted that present petition is required to be
allowed by considering the above-mentioned aspects and
consider the fact that the respondent has not executive
the select list dated 27.11.1996 as mentioned hereinabove
and, therefore, he has prayed to allow the present
petition.
5. Per contra, Ms. Surbhi Bhati, learned Assistant
Government Pleader for the respondent - State by
opposing the prayers made in the present petition, has
submitted that the petitioner has been employed by
respondent No.2 as part timer (Class-IV Category)
wireman on 01.05.1996 and he was retired on 31.12.2010.
She has further submitted that as such, the petitioner
has alternative statutory remedy to seek regularization in
service before the Labour Court and the present petition
is therefore required to be dismissed on the ground of
alternative efficacious remedy. She has further contended
that there is no sanctioned post available with the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16644/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2025
undefined
respondent and, therefore, the services of the present
petitioner are not taken as per the select list. She has
further submitted that the petitioner was serving on
fixed wage basis and it cannot be said that the
petitioner is dispensing his services on sanctioned post.
From the record presented before this court, it suggests
that the post of the wireman is Class-III post. She has
further submitted that the petitioner was serving as part
timer (Class-IV Category), which can be considered as
Class-IV category. She has further submitted that
pursuant to the advertisement of the year 1996, select
list has been prepared but due to non-vacancy, the select
list is not operated and the petitioner has filed this
petition after much delay almost 21 years from the date
of select list and seven years after his retirement from
service. This itself shows that the petitioner is not
vigilant and filing this petition with some ulterior
motive. In support of his submissions, she has relied on
the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
(i) The Government of Tamilnadu and Another Vs. Tamil
Nadu Makkal Nala Paniyalargal and Others reported in
2023 LiveLaw (SC) 294, more particularly, and has relied
upon paragraph 47 is relevant and (ii) A Umarani Vs.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16644/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2025
undefined
Registrar, Co-operative Societies reported in 2004
LawSuit (SC) 718, more particularly, has relied upon
paragraphs 42, 43, 52 and 69 and has submitted that
the present petition is not maintainable and is required
to be dismissed.
6.1 I have considered the rival submissions made at the
bar. It transpires that the petitioner is essentially
challenging the non-execution of the select list dated
27.11.1996 and thereafter, the petitioner has worked as
part timer till he reached at the age of superannuation
in the year 2010. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed the
present petition on 23.08.2017 and, therefore, there is
apparent delay and laches of more than 21 years.
Moreover considering the fact that select list will be in
existence for one year after publication of advertisement
or until the next advertisement whichever is earlier.
Therefore also, there is no substance in the say of the
petitioner as such prayer is also afterthought and that
too after getting retired in the year 2010 and now the
petitioner is claiming the operation of the select list of
the year 1996, this speaks about volume about itself.
6.2 It is also relevant to note that respondent has
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16644/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2025
undefined
specifically contended that there is no vacancy existing
after the select list is prepared and, therefore, there is
no question of giving any appointment as per the select
list.
6.3 It is fruitful to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court cited by learned AGP in the case of (i) The
Government of Tamilnadu and Another (supra), more
particularly, and has relied upon paragraph 47 is
relevant, as under:
"47. There cannot be a quarrel with the proposition that
the Courts cannot direct for creations of posts. In the case
of Divisional Manager Aravali Golf Club and Another Vs.
Chander Hass and Another5, it has been held as under:
"15. The court cannot direct the creation of posts. Creation
and sanction of posts is a prerogative of the executive or
legislative authorities and the court cannot arrogate to itself
this purely executive or legislative function, and direct
creation of posts in any organisation. This Court has time
and again pointed out that the creation of a post is an
executive or legislative function and it involves economic
factors. Hence the courts cannot take upon themselves the
power of creation of a post. Therefore, the directions given
by the High Court and the first appellate court to create
the posts of tractor driver and regularise the services of the
respondents against the said posts cannot be sustained and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16644/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2025
undefined
are hereby set aside."
6.4 It is also fruitful to refer the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court cited by learned AGP in the case of
A Umarani (supra), more particularly, has relied upon
paragraphs 42, 43, 52 and 69, as under:
"42. The said decisions of this Court have received approval
of a 3-Judge Bench of this Court in B.N. Nagarajan and
Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others [(1979) 4 SCC
507] it was held that the procedures for appointment as
contained in the Rules framed under Article 309 of the
Constitution of India must be complied with.
43. No regularisation is, thus, permissible in exercise of
the statutory power conferred under Article 162 of the
Constitution if the appointments have been made in
contravention of the statutory Rules.
52. In Dr. Chanchal Goyal (Mrs.) Vs. State of Rajasthan
[(2003) 3 SCC 485] this Court categorically held that there
was no scope of regularization unless the appointment was
made on a regular basis.
69. Yet again recently in Ramakrishna Kamat & Ors. Vs.
State of Karnataka & Ors. [JT 2003 (2) SC 88], this Court
rejected a similar plea for regularization of services
stating :
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16644/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2025
undefined
"...We repeatedly asked the learned counsel for the
appellants on what basis or foundation in law the
appellants made their claim for regularization and
under what rules their recruitment was made so as
to govern their service conditions. They were not in a
position to answer except saying that the appellants
have been working for quite some time in various
schools started pursuant to resolutions passed by zilla
parishads in view of the government orders and that
their cases need to be considered sympathetically. It
is clear from the order of the learned single judge
and looking to the very directions given a very
sympathetic view was taken. We do not find it either
just or proper to show any further sympathy in the
given facts and circumstances of the case. While
being sympathetic to the persons who come before
the court the courts cannot at the same time be
unsympathetic to the large number of eligible persons
waiting for a long time in a long queue seeking
employment..."
6.5 In view of above, I am of the view that the present
petition is thoroughly meritless and it can be considered
as an attempt to misuse the process of law by the
petitioner. Hence, the present petition is required to be
dismissed.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16644/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2025
undefined
7. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed with
no order as to costs. Notice stands discharged.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J)
DIWAKAR SHUKLA
