Gujarat High Court
Devangkumar Jagdishbhai Barevadiya vs State Of Gujarat on 25 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16120/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16120 of 2017
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
DEVANGKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI BAREVADIYA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VICKY B MEHTA(5422) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4,5
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 25/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This petition is filed for the following reliefs.
"18(a) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue writ of
Mandamus or any other appropriate write order or direction
in the nature of mandamus by holding that the petitioner is
entitled to get appointment on the post of Lok Rakshak
(unarmed) pursuant to his name in the waiting list at sr.no.
31 and further be pleased to direct the respondents to grant
appointment on the post of Lok Rakshak (unarmed).
(b) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue writ of
mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16120/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
in the nature of mandamus by directing the respondents to
consider the case of the petitioner for the post of Lok
Rakshak (unarmed).
(c) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue writ of
Mandamus or any other appropriate rate, order or direction
in the nature of mandamus by quashing and setting aside
the impugned order dated 12.01.2016 and the order dated
19.03/2016 passed by the respondent no.4."
2. The facts leading to filing of this petition are that
pursuant to the advertisement being no.1/2007 published by
the respondent no.2 for the recruitment of Low Rakshak
(unarmed), the petitioner was selected and his name was at
serial number 31 in the waiting list. After the petitioner got
selected, the respondent no.4 by communication dated
19.01.2010, informed the DSP of Surendranagar district to
carry out police verification of the candidates who are
selected for Rajkot region. The notification of the respondent
no.2 was issued in the year 2007 and the select list and
waiting list were published in the year 2009. As the
petitioner had shifted to London during these two years for
further studies, he was not aware that he is selected by
notification dated 30.01.2009.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16120/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
2.1. It is stated that the notice dated 27.03.2010 issued
by the respondent no.4 was never served on the petitioner or
the family member of the petitioner. When the petitioner
returned back to India on 24.06.2013, he came to know
pursuant to the information sought by him under the Right
to Information Act that his name was in the waiting list. He
was also informed that he was selected for Rajkot region by
letter dated 20.06.2014 and further information can be
gathered from respondent no.4.
2.2 It is stated that the petitioner submitted an
application on 30.04.2015 to the respondent no.3 pointing out
the above aspect and requested him to grant appointment on
the post of Lok Rakshak. Again on 26.05.2015, the petitioner
requested the respondent no.2 to grant him appointment on
the post of Lok Rakshak. By letter dated 30.06.2015, the
petitioner was informed to satisfy the department with
regards his study and stay in London and to produce all the
documents relating to his studies in London so that the case
of the petitioner could be considered accordingly. By letter
dated 19.03.2016, the petitioner was informed that the case
of the petitioner for grant of appointment for the post of Lok
Rakshak cannot be considered in view of the fact that one
candidate from the second waiting list namely Virendrasinh
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16120/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
Dashrathsinh Zala is already granted appointment in place of
the petitioner. Though several representations were made by
the petitioner to the respondent, on 12.01.2016, the
respondent no.4 rejected the application of the petitioner.
From the information sought under the Right to Information
Act, the petitioner came to know that on 29.03.2010, the
concerned police officer from Limdi Police Station, District
Surendranagar had went to the house of the petitioner
wherein they found no one present in the house of the
petitioner. Therefore, the present petition.
3. Heard learned advocates for the parties.
3.1 Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that
the name of the petitioner appeared at serial number 31 in
the waiting list and though he was already selected for the
post of Lok Rakshak (unarmed), he could not report only on
account of the fact that he was pursuing his studies at
London from September 2009 till 24.06.2013 and he was not
aware regarding his name being selected. It is submitted that
Virendrasingh Dashrathsingh Zala is granted appointment
though he is at serial number 152 in the merit list and
therefore the action of the respondent is discriminatory. That
the statement dated 29.03.2010 recorded by the police officer
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16120/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
of Limdi Police Station does not create any confidence
because the petitioner was at London but his family members
were very much residing at Limdi and any correspondence or
notice, if sent to the family members of the petitioner would
have reached to them. There is no fault on the part of the
petitioner as this is a case of non communication to the
petitioner. He therefore submitted that the action of the
respondent in granting appointment to some other candidate
namely, Virendrasingh Dashrathsingh Zala is arbitrary and
therefore, this petition is required to be allowed
4. Per contra, learned AGP appearing for the
respondents, has submitted that it is correct that the
petitioner came to be selected by notification of result dated
31.1.2009 for the post of Lok Rakshak (unarmed) where the
name of the petitioner was figured in the merit list at serial
no.31. Therefore, the petitioner was intimated to produce all
the documents and remain present on 19.1.2010. However,
the petitioner did not respond. Thereafter, a notice came to
be issued by Communication dated 23.3.2010 which was sent
by RPAD to the petitioner. However, the said notice returned
back to the office on 27.3.2010 with an endorsement of the
postman that the article has been returned with a note `left'
and it was signed by the postman Limdi. The notice came to
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16120/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
be issued on the address which was mentioned by the
petitioner in the application form. Thereafter, the intimation
to the petitioner to remain present on 23.01.2010 was
informed to the petitioner through Limdi Police Station.
However, the petitioner failed to remain present. The said
notice came back. Though the police constable personally
went to the address of the petitioner on the address
mentioned in the application form, as it was found that
nobody is residing in the place of address provided in the
application, the statement of the neighbor was taken that the
petitioner had went abroad and the parents of the petitioner
had went to the local village. Even in the written statement
submitted to the Deputy Commissioner of Police on 6.10.2015,
it has been stated by the petitioner that when the notice
was issued, for that specific period the petitioner was not in
India and he went to London. Therefore, she submitted that
when all the efforts failed to communicate to the petitioner,
the respondent had no other alternative, but to appoint the
person from the waiting list. It is submitted that after
approximately 4 years of returning back from London, the
petitioner is seeking the appointment on the said post on
which already another person is appointed. She therefore
prays to dismiss this petition.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16120/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
5. I have heard learned advocates for the parties and
perused the material on record.
5.1 It transpires that the petitioner was selected as
Lok Rakshak (unarmed) by notification of result dated
30.01.2009. Therefore, the office of the Deputy Police
Commissioner Rajkot City, Rajkot informed the
Superintendent of Police,
Bhavnagar/Jamnagar/Surendranagar/Amreli/Rajkot Rural vide
letter dated 19.01.2010 to intimate the seven persons whose
names are mentioned therein to remain present with the
documents mentioned. Thereafter vide letter dated 23.01.2010
again the Police Commissioner Office, Rajkot City sent a fax
message to the Superintendent of Police Surendranagar/
Amreli/Bhavnagar/Rajkot Rural intimating that the persons
mentioned at serial number three and seven have not turned
up with the original documents and therefore they be
informed accordingly. The person at sr.no.3 is the petitioner
herein. Thereafter, vide letter dated 23.03.2010 again the
Deputy Police Commissioner's Office, Rajkot City, Rajkot sent
a notice to the petitioner herein by registered post and
informing the said selection and to remain present with the
original documents. The same was sent by RPAD which
returned on 27.03.2010 with the endorsement `left' made by
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16120/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
the postman. The message dated 23.03.2010 was sent by the
police constable also which can be seen from the record who
had made an endorsement that as the said person-the
petitioner herein was not present at his residence and none
was found at his residence, the statement of neighbor
Yuvrajsinh Pratapsinh Solanki Limdi was taken who had
mentioned that the said person was residing at London since
a long time and therefore the said note is returned without
being served. It can be seen from the record that the said
letters were sent to the address mentioned in the application
form and therefore no fault on the part of the respondents
can be found. After making all the efforts to serve the
petitioner and intimate him about his selection and remain
present with the documents, when the petitioner did not turn
up for long time, the respondents had given the opportunity
to some person who was in the waiting list.
5.2 One more fact which is required to be considered
is that selection list is of the year 2009. The efforts were
made by the respondents for three to four times. And
thereafter the person who was in the waiting list was given
the appointment. It can also be seen that when the
petitioner came back from London after a period of about two
years and gathered the information under the Right to
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16120/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
Information Act. Even his own statement dated 6.10.2015
before the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone 1, Rajkot
City, it can be found that the petitioner was not there in
India and he went to London during the said period. The
fact remains that the said statement was recorded in the
year 2015 and this petition is filed after a period of two
years thereafter. Further, it can be seen from the record that
the communication of rejecting the representation of the
petitioner was made on 19.03.2016 and 12.01.2016 and the
present petition is filed on 30.6.2017. Therefore, even after
the petitioner came from London and he wrote his
communication with the respondent authorities and he was
given the reply in the year 2016 and there is a delay of
more than one year in filing this petition.
5.3 In view of all the above facts and circumstances,
it cannot be said that the respondents action of appointing
the other person on the post is bad and illegal. The
petitioner was not vigilant towards his rights and he did not
take any steps during his visit to London to keep the track
of the result and the communications from the respondent
authorities. In view of the above circumstances, when the
petitioner himself is not vigilant and the respondents have
taken all steps within their purview to serve the petitioner
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16120/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
and intimate him about his selection but failed to do so and
thereafter after making all attempts of serving the petitioner,
the respondents had no alternative but to appoint another
person on the post. Therefore, this petition is required to be
dismissed and accordingly, dismissed. Notice/Rule is
discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J)
SRILATHA
