Gujarat High Court
Payal Jayantilal Jadav vs Gandhinagar Municipal Corporation on 23 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/22973/2019 ORDER DATED: 23/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 22973 of 2019
==========================================================
PAYAL JAYANTILAL JADAV
Versus
GANDHINAGAR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MITTAL N PATEL(7614) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 23/06/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. This petition is filed for the following prayers:
"8(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue writ of
mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction,
directing to res.authorities to consider the case of the
petitioner for posting of sanitary sub inspector as selected
and qualified candidate for Sanitary Sub Inspector in
res.corporation.
(B) Pending admission, hearing and till final disposal of this
petition Your Lordships be pleased to consider the case of
the petitioner under the process as the operative condition of
the selection list may be treated as only from the date of
result.
(C) xxxx"
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/22973/2019 ORDER DATED: 23/06/2025
undefined
2. The brief facts leading to filing of this petition are
such that though the petitioner was qualified for the post of
Sanitary Sub Inspector in all aspects as per the
advertisement and notification for the said vacancy, the
petitioner was not selected for the post after the verification
of original documents with the say that the petitioner does
not cover the criteria as per the required merit and
availability of vacancy for the said post and that inspite of
vacancy shown for three female candidates, only one was
selected as per the final list and therefore the petitioner has
challenged the inaction of the respondent by not posting the
petitioner as Sanitary Sub Inspector, by way of this petition.
3. Heard learned advocates for the parties.
3.1 Learned advocate and Ms.Patel has relied on the
letter issued by the respondent Authority whereby she was
called upon to verify some documents pursuant to securing
marks of more than 50% in the written examination. She has
also submitted that there are three vacancies of the female
candidates, and only one was selected and therefore also her
name should be considered. She has further submitted that
total 16 vacancies are by published by advertisement,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/22973/2019 ORDER DATED: 23/06/2025
undefined
whereas only 15 vacancies are filled in and one vacancy is
left out. Therefore, she prays that the authorities have failed
to consider their own resolution and victimized the present
petitioner by denying posting to the present petitioner as
Sanitary Sub-Inspector though she possessed requisite
qualification and even though she cleared written
examination. Therefore, she submitted that the prayers in the
present petition are required to be considered by giving
necessary direction to the respondent authority to consider
the case of the petitioner for posting to the post of Sanitary
Sub-Inspector. She has relied on the judgment in the case of
Special Civil Application No.18654 of 2018 and allied matters
dated 11.12.2019 of the coordinate Bench of this Court, in
support of her submissions and submitted that her case was
required to be considered accordingly.
3.2 Per contra, learned advocate Mr.Bhatt appearing
for learned advocate Mr.Munshaw appearing for the
respondent Corporation has submitted that the respondent
no.2 has held the written examination for 16 posts to the
post of Sanitary Sub-Inspector in the Corporation, wherein
the petitioner has secured 51% Marks and her name was at
serial number 45 in the select list. He has further submitted
that since the petitioners secured more than 50% marks
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/22973/2019 ORDER DATED: 23/06/2025
undefined
which were the minimum qualifying marks, it was decided to
issue a call letter for verification of the marksheets and
other documents. Thereafter, the respondent no.2 has filled
up 15 posts of the cadre of Sanitary Sub-Inspector from the
meritorious candidates, after following reservation i.e. from
different categories. It was also pointed out that one Ashwin
Pargi was duly selected and appointed as ST category
candidate. Though two posts were to be filled up through ST
category, only one candidate having secured more than 50%
marks was available, one post of ST category remained
vacant. Therefore, considering the aspect of reservation, one
post is yet vacant but the petitioner is not entitled to get
appointment as it is reserved for ST category. Therefore, this
petition is required to be dismissed.
4. I have considered the rival submissions made at
the bar and also considered the relevant papers available on
the record. It transpires that pursuant to the advertisement
for the post of 16 Sanitary Sub-Inspectors, the petitioner has
applied, the written test was conducted whereby the
petitioner has secured 51% and her name was reflected at
serial number 45. It also transpires that thereafter, the
appointment is given to the very meritorious persons than
the present petitioner and 15 posts are filled up accordingly
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/22973/2019 ORDER DATED: 23/06/2025
undefined
including one Ashwinbhai Pargi who is appointed from the
ST category. As per the advertisement, two posts were to be
filled from ST category but only one candidate having secured
more than 50% marks, one post is still vacant. It transpires
from the record that 15 posts of the cadre of Sanitary Sub
Inspector were filled up through meritorious candidates after
following reservation meant for different categories and and
all the selected and appointed candidates have secured more
marks than the petitioner except one Mr.Ashwinbhai Pargi
who was selected and appointed in ST category and therefore
one post of ST category was kept vacant. Therefore, the
prayers of the petitioner in this petition cannot be granted.
5. There cannot be any dispute with regard to the
ratio laid down in the judgment cited by learned advocate for
the petitioner. However, the judgment is not helpful in the
facts of the present case as stated above.
6. Considering all these aspects, this petition is
required to be dismissed as the prayers prayed for in this
petition cannot be granted. Accordingly, this petition is
dismissed with no order as to costs.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J)
SRILATHA
