Gujarat High Court
Rajnikant Lavjibhai Chaudhari vs Principal District Judge- Mehsana on 2 July, 2025
Author: Nikhil S. Kariel
Bench: Nikhil S. Kariel
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/29015/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 29015 of 2007
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==========================================================
RAJNIKANT LAVJIBHAI CHAUDHARI & ORS.
Versus
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE- MEHSANA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
ADVOCATE NOTICE NOT RECD BACK for the Petitioner(s) No. 2,3
ADVOCATE NOTICE SERVED for the Petitioner(s) No. 4
MR R G CHAUDHARY(6428) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
DELETED for the Respondent(s) No. 9
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 21
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 15,16,17,18,20,23,24,25,4
VIKAS V NAIR(7444) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
LAW OFFICER BRANCH(420) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
MR ANAND L SHARMA(1714) for the Respondent(s) No. 10,12,13,14,3,7
MR PR NANAVATI(508) for the Respondent(s) No. 15,16,17,18,20,23
MR VAIBHAV A VYAS(2896) for the Respondent(s) No. 19,22,5,8
MR. SAHIL M SHAH(6318) for the Respondent(s) No. 6
MS HARSHAL N PANDYA(3141) for the Respondent(s) No. 11
MS PRACHI UPADHYAY(5857) for the Respondent(s) No. 22,5,8
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL
Date : 02/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned advocate Mr.R.G.Chaudhary appearing on
behalf of the petitioner, learned advocate Mr.Vikas Nair
appearing on behalf of respondents no.1 and 2, learned
advocate Mr.P.R.Nanavaty appearing on behalf of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/29015/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
respondents no.15, 17, 18, 20 and 23, learned advocate
Mr.Sahil Shah appearing on behalf of respondent no.6,
learned advocate Mr.Vaibhav Vyas with learned advocate
Ms.Prachi Upadhya appearing on behalf of respondents no. 5,
8, 19 and 22, learned advocate Ms.Harshal Pandya appearing
on behalf of respondent no.11 and learned advocate
Ms.Himanshi Balodi for learned advocate Mr.Anand Sharma
appearing on behalf of respondents no.3, 7, 10, 12, 13 and 14.
2. The present petition had been preferred in the year 2007
inter alia challenging orders dated 20.12.2006 and 11.01.2007
as being arbitrary, illegal etc. and in defiance of an order
passed by a learned Coordinate Bench in the first round of
litigation being Special Civil Application No.17627/2006 and
allied matters.
2.1. It would appear that when the petition had been taken
up for the first time, the counsel appearing for the District
Judge, Mehsana had submitted to this Court that because of
some misconception, the District Judge did not pass the order
and whereas, it was submitted that appropriate order shall be
passed and communicated to the petitioner and whereas, for
such an action, time was granted. The same being recorded in
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/29015/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
order of this Court dated 23.11.2007.
2.2. It would appear that pursuant to the said undertaking,
the then Principal District Judge, Mehsana had passed an
order dated 07.12.2007 in respect of representation preferred
by the petitioners and whereas, vide the above referred order,
the representations had been directed to be filed as no
substance was found therein. At the outset, it requires to be
mentioned here that order dated 07.12.2007 being the
impugned order, has not been challenged in the present
petition at all.
2.3. Be that as it may, it would appear that the entire petition
is completely misconceived inasmuch as while there appears
to be two different advertisements issued by the
establishment of the District Court, Mehsana for the post of
Assistant (Junior Clerk) and whereas, the petitioner has two
different sets of grievances as regards both the selection
processes and whereas, unfortunately, it appears that both
the set of grievances have been mixed up in the present
petition, leading to the facts being so much jumbled up that
this Court at its wits' end to segregate the facts and grievance
of the petitioner as relatable to the different sets of selection
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/29015/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
process. As it is, it would appear from the petition that
reference is made only to the earlier advertisement, whereas
grounds are relatable to the later advertisement.
3. To clarify, it appears that the District Court, Mehsana
had published its first advertisement vide outward
no.B.4/24/Admin/1431/2004 in a daily news paper calling for
applications to reach the establishment of the District Court
by the 31.08.2004. The criteria prescribed being S.S.C. or
equivalent and having speed of 30 words per minute in
English and 25 words per minute in Gujarati language and
having knowledge of computer. The age criteria was between
18 to 25.
3.1. From the documents, this Court has gathered that a total
of 116 candidates had been selected in the said selection
process and whereas, the list had been sent for approval to
the High Court and whereas, vide a communication dated
21.06.2005, the High Court had directed the approval of the
only one person namely Shri S.R.Raval who was figuring at
sr.no.4 in the list whereas, the remaining list of 115
candidates had been disapproved i.e. the remaining list was
directed to be scraped. It appears that the petitioner had been
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/29015/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
selected in the said selection process and was part of the list
of 115 candidates.
3.2. It further appears that the establishment of the District
Court, Mehsana had published another advertisement for
selection to the post of Assistant (Junior Clerk) vide
advertisement no.B.4/24/Admin/1537/2005 and whereas, the
conditions prescribed were same as in the earlier
advertisement and whereas, a list of instructions was also
published, as could be observed from the advertisement which
has been annexed with an affidavit filed by respondents no.3,
7, 10, 12 and 14.
3.3. It appears that the selection process envisaged was a
written test and the candidates who had passed the said test
would be taking a typing test and the candidates who had
passed the typing test would give the oral interview and those
who clear the oral interview would figure in the final select
list. It would appear that the written test, insofar as the
second advertisement was conducted on 31.07.2005, whereas
the petitioner had failed to clear the written test, therefore, he
was not entitled to participate in the typing test conducted on
13.08.2005 or the later oral interview conducted on
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/29015/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
15.08.2005. The substantive grievance of the petitioner being
against the petitioner failing in the written test in the second
advertisement.
3.4. It would appear in this regard that the grievances of the
petitioner qua both the selection process have been mixed up
and whereas, the petitioner appears to claim that though his
name figured in the first select list, yet, in the second select
list his name disappeared without any reason.
4. Be that as it may, now, the Court will consider the
submissions made by learned advocate Mr.Chaudhary on
behalf of the petitioner.
4.1. At the outset, learned advocate would submit that the
respondents are trying to mislead this Court by submitting
that there were two different advertisements whereas,
according to learned advocate, the advertisement in question
was a common advertisement, of which a draft was annexed
with the petition. Learned advocate would submit that insofar
as a candidate namely Shri S.R.Raval, he did not have any
experience whatsoever in typing and yet, the said candidate
had been selected whereas, the petitioner, during the period
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/29015/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
when the selection process had taken place, was working in
the establishment of the District Court as a Stenographer on
ad-hoc basis, had not been selected.
4.2. It is submitted that the selection process did not figure
any procedure whatsoever and furthermore, it is submitted
more particularly relying upon paragraph no.10 of order
dated 07.12.2007 that even typing test has not been
conducted at all. Learned advocate would further refer as
regards qualifications of certain candidates and would submit
that the candidates though not possessing relevant
qualifications, had been selected and whereas, the petitioner
though qualified had not been selected. Reference is
particularly made to the case of one Desai Virambhai
Ajmalbhai submitting that the said person who had been
selected as an Assistant was admittedly overage on the date of
selection, yet, the said candidate had been selected, whereas,
the petitioner is treated to have been failed in written
examination.
4.3. Learned advocate Mr.Chaudhary would further rely
upon circular of the State Government dated 15.07.1998
submitting that the respondents did not follow the principles
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/29015/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
as mentioned in the said circular i.e. with regard to
maintaining a ratio between the direct recruitees and
promotees.
4.4. Learned advocate would further rely upon two
communications issued by the High Court dated 21.06.2005
and 22.09.2005 and would submit that vide the former
communication while list of 115 candidates had been
disapproved, vide the later communication a list of 222
candidates had been approved which list figured around 66
persons from the first list. Learned advocate would submit
that such 66 persons from the earlier list had been brought in
the later list without following any due process and whereas,
the candidature of the present petitioner had not been
considered at all.
4.5. Learned advocate would, in support of his submission,
relied upon the following decisions:-
i. Decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Tej
Prakash Pathak vs. Rajasthan High Court, reported in 2024
INSC 847
ii. Decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/29015/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
case of Dr.Tejas Mahasukhlal Tank vs. Gujarat Public Service
Commission Thru. Chairman & Anr., reported in 2024 (2) GLH
iii. Decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Nutan
Kumari vs. B.R.A.Bihar University and Ors., reported in 2023
(14) SCR 699
iv. Decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Ankita
Thakur and Ors. vs. H.P.Staff Selection Commission and Ors.,
reported in 2023 (15) Scale 340
v. Decision of this Court in case of Kailash Nath Mishra vs.
Chairman, Board of Governors, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel
National Institute of Technology, dated 13.07.2023 in Special
Civil Application No.13777/2022
vi. Decision of learned Coordinate Bench of this Court in
case of Bhargavkumar Hasmukhbhai Sachaniya vs. Secretary,
reported in 2022 (1) GLH 41
vii. Decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Chaudhary
Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar vs.
Monika, reported in 2024 INSC 911
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/29015/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
viii. Decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Chief
Personnel Officer vs. A. Nishanth George, reported in 2022
(11) SCC 678
ix. Decision of Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in case
of Maruti Enterprise Through Authorized Partner Jigneshbhai
Bharatbhai Tarpara vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2020 JX
(Guj) 78
5. As against the same, the present petition has been
vehemently opposed by learned advocate Mr.Vikas Nair on
behalf of the District Court and the High Court.
5.1. It is submitted by learned advocate Mr.Nair that while
the petition raises various allegations in a composite manner,
it would appear that petition is with regard to two separate
advertisements and whereas, it is submitted that the
petitioner, having failed in the written test conducted in the
second advertisement, has now questioned the selection
process itself. Learned advocate would submit that as such,
no material whatsoever has been produced by the petitioner
to substantiate any of his allegations.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/29015/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
5.2. It is submitted that as far as the first advertisement
goes, while a list of 116 candidates had been prepared, the
same had been scraped except for one candidate, and
whereas, in the later advertisement, a list of 222 candidates
had been prepared and whereas, except for one candidate, the
entire list had been notified. Learned advocate would submit
that no cause accrues in favour of the petitioner more
particularly having failed in the written test and whereas, it is
too late in the day for the petitioner now to complaint about
his non-selection without any material whatsoever and
therefore, it is submitted that, this Court may reject the
petition.
6. This petition is also vehemently objected to by learned
advocate Mr.P.R.Nanavaty, learned advocate Mr.Sahil Shah,
learned advocate Ms.Prachi Upadhyay, learned advocate
Ms.Harshal Pandya and learned advocate Ms.Himanshi Balodi
on behalf of the private respondents.
6.1. Learned advocates would submit that as such, no
irregularity was committed at any point of time in the
selection process. It is submitted that the respondents are all
selectees of the second selection process and whereas, the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/29015/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
private respondents having served for almost two decades,
most of them have now been promoted. It is submitted that as
such, the petition itself may not be entertained by this Court
as in addition to there being no reason for questioning the
selection of the private respondents, and for the reason that
any orders disturbing the selection list will cause uncalled
prejudice and hardship to the private respondents who are
diligently and sincerely discharging duties in the
establishment of the District Court.
6.2. Thus submitting, the private respondents would request
that this Court may not entertain the writ petition.
7. Having heard learned advocates for the respective
parties, to this Court, it would appear that the petition is not
required to be entertained for more than one reason.
7.1. The first reason, to this Court for non-entertaining the
writ petition, is the fact that the petitioner has not questioned
the main impugned order itself. As noticed by this Court,
while the prayers are with regard to challenging orders dated
20.12.2006 and 11.01.2007, it also appears that at the first
hearing itself, this Court had been informed by the counsel for
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/29015/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
the respondents no.1 and 2 that the respondent no.1 would be
passing a fresh order and whereas, it is in context of such a
submission that the order dated 07.12.2007 had been passed
by the then Principal District Judge, Mehsana. The said order
also appears to have been placed on record by way of
amendment. It would appear that the said order has not been
challenged independently by amending the petition or by any
other mode whatsoever. True it is that in writ jurisdiction,
discretion available to this Court is not circumscribed by the
prayers sought for, yet, to this Court, it would appear that in
cases like the present, where there is an inter-se dispute with
regard to the selection, the petitioner ought to have been
extremely vigilant and should have challenged the order dated
07.12.2007 at the first available instance. The said
observation gets magnified in view of the fact that order dated
07.12.2007 is a detailed reasoned order, where each and ever
contention / allegation of the petitioner in his representation
to the Principal District Judge has been specifically dealt with.
In absence of pleadings with regard to the findings of the
order dated 07.12.2007 and in absence of a specific prayer
questioning the same, to this Court, it would appear that the
petition is itself without any substratum whatsoever.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/29015/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
7.2. The petition also requires to be rejected on a different
count i.e. on the count that even a limited direction passed in
favour of the petitioner would lead to catastrophic
consequences upon the private respondents. This Court
hastens to clarify that while this Court has not been presented
with any material whatsoever, on the basis of which, this
Court could have interfered even in a limited manner, yet, as
of now, to this Court, it would appear that interfering in this
petition would cause grave prejudice to the private
respondents who have been selected and appointed as far as
back in the year 2005 itself. After twenty years of service
when most of the private respondents have been promoted, to
even cast a passing aspersion on their selection would, in the
considered opinion of this Court, be an exercise which would
be completely uncalled for. While this Court is clear that in
circumstances which do warrant interference namely in cases
of fraud etc., long time of appointment would not give any
premium to a party, yet, in the present case, the long time
which has elapsed, dissuades this Court from interfering in
the present petition.
7.3. An additional aspect in this regard being the fact that
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/29015/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
the selection which had started vide advertisement dated
24.06.2005 had completed upon the High Court approving list
of 221 candidates out of the list of 222 candidates vide
communicated dated 22.09.2005. The petitioner who had
appeared for the selection as far as the second advertisement
is concerned, had failed in the written examination conducted
on 31.07.2005, had preferred the first petition in the year
2006 being Special Civil Applications No.17627/2006, 17658-
17660/2006 and whereas, it is in this petition that learned
Coordinate Bench had passed order dated 07.11.2006 for
considering the representation of the present petitioner. It
would thus appear that the petitioner had, for the first time,
approached this Court in the year 2006, to be specific,
somewhere in the month of October - November, 2006
questioning the selection process, which selection process as
far as the petitioner is concerned, had come to an end upon
the petitioner failing in the written examination on
31.07.2005. The Principal District Judge, pursuant to the
order of learned Coordinate Bench, had rejected the
representations on 20.12.2006 and 11.01.2006 and whereas,
the present petition had been preferred approximately 11
months thereafter in the month of November, 2007. Thus, by
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/29015/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
the time the present petition had been preferred, all the
private respondents and other selectees who had joined, were
already appointed and whereas, to this Court, it would appear
that, under such circumstances, in the year 2025 i.e. two
decades after the appointment of the private respondents, this
Court would be loath to interfere in the such a kind of
petition.
8. Now, coming to the merits of the matter, while it is
contended by learned advocate Mr.Chaudhary that there was
only one single examination, it would appear that the
petitioner has completely missed out on the main issue i.e.
there were two different advertisements. While a lame
submission has been attempted to be made before this Court
by the learned advocate that what has been annexed at
Annexure-A to this petition is a draft of the advertisement, the
averments made in the petition do not support such a
submission. In the petition it is averred at para - 3.2 as
reproduced below:-
"3.2. The petitioners submit that the respondent
has issued an advertisement in the Prabhat News
Paper, inviting applications for filing the post of
junior clerk. The petitioners crave leave to annex the
copy of the advertisement issued by the respondent
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/29015/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
an ANNEXURE-A to the petition memo. "
8.1. The above does not in any manner reveal that what has
been annexed in the petition is a draft. As such, a perusal of
the said advertisement reveals that the same was published
somewhere before August, 2004 since the last date for the
application was 31.08.2004. It also appears perusing the
communication dated 21.06.2005 which has been annexed by
the petitioner as well as the respondents no.1 and 2 herewith
that pursuant to the advertisement issued in the year 2004 for
the post of Assistant (Junior Clerk), a list of 116 candidates
had been prepared and whereas, out of the said list, only one
candidate had been approved by the High Court whereas,
remaining 115 candidates had been disapproved. It would
further appear basis a list of 116 candidates which is annexed
with the affidavit-in-rejoinder that the petitioner figured in the
first list i.e. pursuant to the advertisement of the year 2004
and whereas, except for one person, the entire list of 116
candidates had been scraped.
8.2. There is something to be said about the candidate whose
name had been approved, but, later on about that.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/29015/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
8.3. It would further appear that the establishment of the
District Court, Mehsana, as noticed hereinabove, had issued
another advertisement where the last date for receiving
application was 08.07.2005 for the post of Assistant (Junior
Clerk) and as per the reply, the petitioner had failed in the
written examination which had been conducted on
31.07.2005. The case of the petitioner ended with the said
failure. Unfortunately, this being the case, what is now being
attempted to be submitted before this Court is that while a list
of 222 candidates had been prepared after the scraping of 116
candidates and whereas, the second list contained a list of 66
candidates whose names figured in the first 116 and whereas,
the said 66 candidates were included in the list of 222,
without following any procedure at all. To this Court, it would
appear that such a submission is not made on the basis of any
supporting material.
8.4. In this regard, it would be relevant to now go back to the
case of the one candidate whose name had been approved in
the first list. A perusal of the communication dated 21.06.2005
by the then Registrar Inspection, Gujarat High Court reveals
that while the establishment of the District Court, Mehsana
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/29015/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
had sent a list of 116 candidates, upon verification, the High
Court had found that one candidate namely Shri S.R.Raval i.e.
at Sr.No.4 in the merit list had secured 40% marks in the
written test and had also secured 63 marks i.e. above 40%
marks in the typing test and it is only the said candidate who
had qualified. From the said communication, it is apparent
that while the establishment of the District Court may have
forwarded a list, it is not that such list had been approved by
the establishment of the High Court on asking. The fact that
only one candidate out of 116 candidates had been approved
for appointment and remaining 115 candidates' list had been
scraped is enough proof of the fact that the list of candidates
had been scrutinized threadbare at the level of High Court
and there cannot be any allegation that in the later list, the
establishment of the District Court, Mehsana had included 66
candidates without following any procedure and whereas, the
same had not come to the notice of the High Court.
8.5. Again, while the petitioner alleges that one candidate
namely Shri S.R.Raval did not have any typing experience, it
appears that it is the said candidate who was the only person
whose name had been approved by the High Court more
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/29015/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
particularly the candidate having secured more than minimum
requirement in the written test as well as in the typing test.
No material whatsoever is produced on record in support of
the submission that the said candidate did not have any typing
experience and whereas, upon the learned advocate being
directed to show appropriate material, it is submitted by
learned advocate that since he had made allegations, it would
be for the High Court or the District Court to produce
material to show that the said candidate had enough typing
experience.
8.6. To this Court, the petitioner is turning the rules of
evidence, on its head. To this Court, it would appear that it is
a well settled position that the burden of making good an
allegation is on the person who makes such an allegation and
only upon appropriate material being produced, would the
onus shift upon the other party to disprove the same. Merely
by making allegation that a candidate does not have typing
experience and expecting the establishment of the High Court
or the District Court to disprove the same, is not a concept
which is, to this Court, in accordance with law. In any case, as
noticed in communication dated 21.06.2005, it is the said
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/29015/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
candidate who had secured more than sufficient marks and it
was that candidate only out of the list of 116 candidates,
whose name had been approved by the High Court.
8.7. Insofar as the allegation that around 66 persons whose
name figured in the list of 115 which had been scraped having
figured in the later list of 222, except for a bare averment that
the same is done without following any procedure, to this
Court, it does not appear that any material whatsoever has
been produced. As a matter of fact, a very specific averment
has been made in the affidavits filed on behalf of the District
Court as well as the High Court that list of 222 candidates had
been prepared after conducting written test on 31.07.2005,
typing test and oral interview being conducted on 13.08.2005
to 15.08.2005. It also appears that out of the list of 222
candidates sent for approval to the High Court, the list had
been scraped insofar as one candidate and whereas, from the
material placed on record, it would appear that a detailed
exercise had been conducted which had received approval of
the then Hon'ble the Chief Justice and the then Unit Judge as
regards scraping the name of one candidate. To this Court, it
would appear that the level of examination where even for
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/29015/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
scraping of one candidate from a list of 222 having been
examined threadbare, upto the level of Hon'ble the Chief
Justice, would be enough material to reject the allegation on
behalf of the petitioner that 66 candidates out of 115
candidates i.e. the scraped list had figured without any kind of
procedure whatsoever.
8.8. While the petition contains certain allegations with
regard to certain candidates, no material whatsoever has
been produced to show that the said candidates are suffering
from any kind of disabilities. One of the allegations being that
some candidates did not have GCC certificates and whereas,
in the affidavit-in-reply, it is very specifically averred by the
respondents that having GCC certificate is not a pre-condition
for selection, rather, having adequate marks in the typing test
is the condition for selection.
8.9. Learned advocate Mr.Chaudhary had also very
vehemently submitted with regard to para-10 of the impugned
order dated 07.12.2007 that no typing test was conducted for
selection of the list of 222 candidates and whereas, it was
submitted that para-10 contains an admission in that regard.
A perusal of para-10, to this Court, reveals otherwise. After
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/29015/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
approximately two years of appointment, since one of the
allegations was that the candidates did not have enough
typing experience, the then Principal District Judge has
observed that 56 candidates have joined services before two
years and till date, not a single complaint is received from any
Judicial Officer or from any Head of a Branch and whereas, it
is under such circumstances, that the Principal District Judge
had though it proper not to take a typing test of the
candidates. It would appear in this regard that the said typing
test, which is referred is post appointment and whereas, the
allegation of the petitioner is that before appointment, some
private respondents did not possess adequate typing
experience. To this Court, nothing turns on observations made
by the Principal District Judge at para-10.
9. Insofar as the judgments relied upon by learned
advocate for the petitioner, to this Court, it would appear that
none of the judgments would in any manner whatsoever
advance the cause of the petition more particularly since it
would appear to this Court that the judgments have been
referred completely out of the context more particularly the
law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court in
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/29015/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
the judgments referred to do not appear to be having any
relevance to the context in hand.
9.1. In case of Tej Prakash Pathak (supra), the
observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is relied upon to
submit that recruitment process commences from the
issuance of advertisement and ends with the filling up of the
vacancies and the eligibility criteria notified cannot be
changed midway through the recruitment process. To this
Court, however liberally it would construe the submissions
made by learned advocate for the petitioner and however
liberally it would read the averments made in the petition as
well as in the rejoinder, there does not appear to be any
contention, which could be even obliquely meant to mean that
the respondents had changed the selection criteria midway
through the selection process. The allegation being that some
of the candidates may not have the requisite qualification for
being appointed and whereas, the petitioner who, according
to the petitioner, is well qualified having not been appointed,
would not automatically translate to mean that the
respondents had changed the criteria for selection midway.
9.2. Insofar as the decision of this Court in case of Dr.Tejas
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/29015/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
Mahasukhlal Tank (supra) is concerned, the law laid down
by this Court being that rules applying to recruitment process
have to remain the same till conclusion of the process and all
candidates have to be governed by same set of rules and
criteria throughout and it is not permissible to change the
rules in the midway, would be covered by the observations of
this Court hereinabove as regards the non-applicability of the
decision in case of Tej Prakash Pathak (supra).
9.3. In case of Nutan Kumari (supra), the law laid down
being that once process of selection commences, criteria
prescribed in advertisement for conducting selection process
of eligible candidates cannot be altered, would also be
covered by the observations hereinabove in case of Tej
Prakash Pathak (supra).
9.4. In case of Ankita Thakur and Ors. (supra), the
observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court being relied upon
being the same as in the earlier decisions, the observations of
this Court would apply thereto also.
9.5. Insofar as the case of Kailash Nath Mishra (supra) is
concerned, the said decision of the learned Coordinate Bench
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/29015/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
is relied upon to submit that the petitioner cannot be once
again put to hardship by applying afresh and asking him to
undergo process of selection for no fault of his on account of
the cancellation of advertisement, appears to be a proposition
which would not have any relevance whatsoever to the facts
of the present case.
9.6. Furthermore, in case of Bhargavkumar Hasmukhbhai
Sachaniya (supra), a learned Coordinate Bench has held
that respondent authorities could not have rejected the
candidature of the petitioner in a recruitment without
verification of the nature of work assigned to the petitioner as
a Deputy Section Officer in Nazir Department of High Court
and whereas, the respondent authorities could not have
ignored certificate issued by the Registrar General. The said
law being quoted to submit that the experience of the
petitioner as a Stenographer on ad-hoc basis in the
establishment of the District Court does not appear to have
been considered, is also, to this Court, completely irrelevant
to the facts of the case since the petitioner's candidature has
not been rejected upon the experience of the petitioner not
being considered as being adequate, rather the petitioner's
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/29015/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
candidature had been rejected since the petitioner failed in
the written examination.
9.7. In case of Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana
Agricultural University, Hisar (supra), the decision is
relied upon to contend that experience gained in earlier
appointment should be given adequate weightage and
whereas, the observations of this Court hereinabove in case of
Bhargavkumar Hasmukhbhai Sachaniya (supra) would cover
the said aspect also.
9.8. In case of Chief Personnel Officer (supra), the law
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court being with regard to
a scheme namely the LARSGESS Scheme, to this Court, does
not have any relevance whatsoever to the facts of the present
case.
9.9. The observations of this Court in case of Maruti
Enterprise Through Authorized Partner Jigneshbhai
Bharatbhai Tarpara (supra) with regard to a party having
chosen to avail remedy of approaching this Court by a writ
jurisdiction and the Court having entertained the petition had
no authority to thereafter enter into the merits of the case and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/29015/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
pass any order in the matter when the case was sub-judice the
authority had no business to enter into the merits of the case,
is relied upon to submit that some documents with regard to
the selection process had been burnt when the present writ
petition was under consideration. This Court fails to
understand and appreciate the relevance of such a
submission. It is not the case of the petitioner that any of the
documents, even if they have burned, non-presence of the
same had prejudiced the petitioner in any manner
whatsoever. It is not the case of the petitioner that in any of
the affidavits-in-reply the official respondents have contended
that they would not be able to meet with the allegations made
by the petitioner in the writ petition on account of papers with
regard to the selection process not being available. Thus, the
submission made by the petitioner being completely
irrelevant, does not require any kind of finding from this
Court.
10. Having observed as above, to this Court, it would appear
that the present petition is out and out misconceived
inasmuch as though the petitioner is aggrieved by his non-
selection qua the second advertisement, averments made in
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/29015/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
the petition as well as the documents annexed thereto are
with regard to the earlier advertisement. There is no
clarification whatsoever in the writ petition as regards the
grievance of the petitioner with regard to second
advertisement except for broad allegations being made
against the lack of qualifications of some of the candidates.
Furthermore, various allegations are being attempted to be
made in the affidavit-in-rejoinder filed in the year 2024 which,
though this Court has looked into, to this Court, is of no
consequence whatsoever.
11. Having regard to the above observations, discussion and
findings, to this Court, the present petition being absolutely
merit-less, is disposed of as rejected.
(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J)
Bhoomi
