Gujarat High Court
Chief District Health Officer vs Badi Irafan Amibhai on 24 June, 2025
Author: A. S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/621/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 621 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9602 of 2012
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 621 of 2025
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 656 of 2025
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9602 of 2012
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 656 of 2025
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9602 of 2012
==========================================================
CHIEF DISTRICT HEALTH OFFICER & ANR.
Versus
BADI IRAFAN AMIBHAI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
KAASH K THAKKAR(7332) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MS SHRUTI DHRUVE, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 3
KRUPALI N BHATT(9455) for the Respondent(s) No. 15,16
MR PRADEEP PATEL(642) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
Date : 24/06/2025
COMMON ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1. ADMIT. Learned advocates waive service of notice of admission
for and on behalf of respective respondents - original petitioners.
2. The present appeals emanate from the judgment and order dated
27.01.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil
Application No. 9602 of 2012, wherein the learned Single Judge directed
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/621/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/06/2025
undefined
that the respondents - original petitioners shall be included in the select
list of trainees for Multi-purpose Health Workers (Male) issued by the
District Panchayat, Rajkot dated 13.04.2012 in accordance with inter se
merit. It is pertinent to note that after the writ petition was filed in year
2012, District Panchayat, Rajkot initiated process of sending the
candidates for training; however, thereafter the Rajkot District has been
bifurcated, and new District Morbi has been carved out from the Rajkot
District. Hence, District Panchayat, Morbi was also arraigned as
respondent by order dated 06.05.2024, and the notice was issued to
District Panchayat, Morbi.
3. The facts established from the captioned petition are that the
District Panchayat, Rajkot issued an advertisement on 16.01.2012, calling
upon 16 candidates for Walk-in Interview held on 23.01.2012 at 12:00
p.m. in the District Panchayat Office, along with the relevant documents,
for sending them to training for period of one year. Upon successfully
completing the training and regular recruitment process, they would be
appointed. The training pertains to Multi-purpose Health Workers (Male).
Accordingly, the present petitioners, along with other candidates,
appeared before the District Panchayat, Rajkot on 23.01.2012. They were
11 in number. The respondents - original petitioners produced the
relevant documents and signed bond.
4. All these exercises were undertaken by the appellant - District
Panchayat, Rajkot. It appears that, thereafter, a fresh advertisement was
issued by the District Panchayat, Rajkot on 08.04.2012, calling upon the
candidates, 11 in number, to appear in Walk-in Interview on 12.04.2012.
The advertisement mentiones that earlier select list, prepared pursuant to
the earlier advertisement, is canceled. The additional condition was
imposed in the said advertisement that the candidates shall possess
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/621/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/06/2025
undefined
computer knowledge. Accordingly, the respondents - original petitioners
appeared again for the interview. However, at this time, their names did
not appear in the select list of trainee - Multi-purpose Health Workers
(Male). This constrained them to file captioned writ petition challenging
the action of the authorities. It is also pertinent to note that names of 6
candidates from the earlier selection process were included in the second
selection process. In the writ petition, a categorical stand was taken by
appellant - District Panchayat, Rajkot that the respondents, during their
oral interview held on 12.04.2012, did not possess computer knowledge
and did not attach certificate showing the qualifications. It was submitted
that, accordingly, the select list was prepared, and they were not selected
for the purpose of training.
5. Mr. Kaash K. Thakkar, learned advocate appearing for the
appellant, has submitted that learned Single Judge has erred in including
the names of the respondents - original petitioners in select list dated
13.04.2012. It is submitted that, in fact, the District Panchayat had
categorically submitted that the respondents were not sent for training,
since they do not possess the computer knowledge, which was recorded
by the competent authority on day of interview, and accordingly, they
were not selected. Learned advocate for appellant placed reliance on
details filed-in by competent authority, after conducting Walk-in
Interview. It is further submitted that learned Single Judge also erred in
placing the reliance on earlier selection process, which was found to be
illegal in view of the specific Government Resolution dated 17.04.2008,
wherein State Government has clarified that candidates, who are selected
for training should have necessary computer knowledge.
6. It is submitted that this exercise is undertaken by the District
Panchayat, Rajkot to send the candidates for training, and only after
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/621/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/06/2025
undefined
completion of successful training, they have to undergo necessary regular
process to get appointment to the post of Multi-purpose Health Workers
(Male). It is submitted that, by this time, entire exercise was over and
hence, the learned Single Judge erred in issuing such directions. It is also
submitted that the relevant certificates produced on record were never
shown to the appellant - District Panchayat, Rajkot and they do not
inspire confidence, since in fact the certificate indicates that place of issue
is Kota (Rajasthan) and centre, which has issued the certificate, is in
Amreli (Gujarat). Thus, it is urged that the present appeal may be
allowed.
7. Mr. Kaash K. Thakkar, learned advocate appearing for District
Panchayat, Morbi, which has been carved out from District Panchayat,
Rajkot, adopted arguments made on behalf of District Panchayat, Rajkot.
8. In response to aforesaid submissions, Mr. Pradeep Patel, learned
advocate for respondents, urged that present appeal may not be
entertained, and the judgment and order passed by learned Single Judge
were precisely passed after appreciating the fact that respondents had
acquired knowledge of computer, and there was no occasion for
respondents - original petitioners to deny the requisite qualifications in
Walk-in Interview. He submitted that after the respondents - original
petitioners were selected, pursuant to the earlier advertisement, necessary
formalities were undertaken by the appellant - District Panchayat, Rajkot,
and an order was issued on 26.03.2012 to respondents - original
petitioners for training, but the said order was not effected. All of a
sudden, a fresh advertisement was published, calling for fresh candidates,
which should have been 11 in number; however, the appellant - District
Panchayat, Rajkot called more than 11 candidates, and select list of 22
candidates, and respondents - original petitioners were declared
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/621/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/06/2025
undefined
unsuccessful.
9. It is submitted that, in earlier advertisement, nowhere it was
mentioned that the candidates should possess knowledge of computer,
and hence, there was no question of attaching such certificates. In second
advertisement, the appellant - District Panchayat, Rajkot incorporated
condition of candidates having knowledge of computer. While placing
reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Tej Prakash
Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3184, it is
submitted that, in fact, it is not permissible for appellant - District
Panchayat, Rajkot to change rules of game in middle of the selection
process.
10. Learned advocate for respondents - original petitioners further
pointed out that, though the appellant - District Panchayat, Rajkot
undertook exhaustive inquiry of documents produced by respondents -
original petitioners in earlier round of selection process, respondents -
original petitioners, though having been placed in select list, were not
sent for training, and all of a sudden, fresh advertisement was issued in
the newspaper for undertaking fresh selection process on 08.04.2012. It is
submitted that it was not permissible for appellant - District Panchayat,
Rajkot to conduct fresh selection process, after earlier selection process
pursuant to advertisement dated 16.01.2012 was completed. Learned
advocate for respondents - original petitioners further submitted that
statement made by respondents - original petitioners in their affidavit in
rejoinder dated 16.08.2013, to the effect that they had produced
photocopies of their certificates showing the computer knowledge and the
requisite qualification, has not been controverted by appellant - District
Panchayat, Rajkot, and hence, it is urged that the appeal may not be
entertained.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/621/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/06/2025
undefined
11. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective
parties at length.
12. The appellant - District Panchayat, Rajkot issued an advertisement
on 16.01.2012, asking to appear for Walk-in Interview on 23.01.2012 at
12:00 p.m. The conditions prescribed in said advertisement do not in any
manner refer that the candidates should possess the computer knowledge.
At this stage, we may note that, the provision of Rule 6(4) of the Multi-
purpose Health Workers (Male) Training and Examination Rules, 2009,
read with Government Resolution dated 17.02.2009, mandates that a
person, who appears for selection of trainee Multi-purpose Health
Workers (Male) must possess computer knowledge. When appellant -
District Panchayat, Rajkot realized that selection process undertaken
pursuant to advertisement dated 16.01.2012, which included names of
respondents - original petitioners along with other 11 persons, was de
hors the provisions of Rules, appellant - District Panchayat, Rajkot
canceled the entire list, and issued a fresh advertisement for initiation of
selection process of candidates to be sent for training by issuing
advertisement dated 08.04.2012, by incorporating the condition of
requirement of the computer knowledge. Thus, we do not find any
illegality in canceling the select list, which was prepared pursuant to the
oral interview held in view of the advertisement dated 08.04.2012, since
the entire process was illegal and de hors the statutory requirement of
calling upon those candidates who possessed the computer knowledge.
13. It is not in dispute that the respondents also appeared in the Walk-
in Interview, which was held on 12.12.2012, as per the second
advertisement dated 08.04.2012. The respondents did not challenge the
issuance of the second advertisement for the selection process and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/621/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/06/2025
undefined
without any objection, appeared in the second selection process. Hence, it
is not open for the respondent - original petitioners to question the action
of canceling the earlier selection process. It is also not open for the
respondents to claim selection on the basis of the earlier selection
process, since it was illegal.
14. When the second selection process was initiated, the respondents -
original petitioners appeared in Walk-in Interview on 12.12.2012. The
competent authority, which conducted the interview, interviewed 22
candidates, and said list has been produced at page No. 74 of the record.
Upon perusal of the same, it reveals that, in Column No. 11 before the
names of the respondents - original petitioners, it is mentioned as "no,"
which pertains to specific requirement of having computer knowledge.
15. When appellant - District Panchayat, Rajkot contended before
learned Single Judge that respondents failed to point out that they had the
computer knowledge, in the affidavit-in-rejoinder filed by respondents -
original petitioners, counter statement was made that, in fact, they had
answered the query of possessing computer knowledge in affirmative and
also handed over the photocopies of certificates, produced on record,
showing that they had completed Course of Computer Concept from
01.11.2010 to 31.01.2011. It is the specific case case of appellant -
District Panchayat that during the oral interview, they did not mention
that they were having the computer knowledge, and never produced the
certificates. Thus, there is a word against word, and a disputed question
of fact has arisen in the present matter. On one hand, appellant - District
Panchayat, Rajkot contends that there was a specific denial by the
respondents - original petitioners before the competent authority, though
they had not mentioned about possessing the computer knowledge,
whereas the respondents - original petitioners have asserted before this
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/621/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/06/2025
undefined
Court that had in fact mentioned that they possess the computer
knowledge and the certificates were produced at the time of Walk-in
Interview. Thus, in view of assertion and denial of the fact by the
respective parties, while exercising powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, we cannot delve into the disputed questions of fact.
The respondents have not alleged any mala fide against the competent
authority.
16. We have also noticed that the learned Single Judge was impressed
by respondents - original petitioners having been selected in the earlier
selection process and possession of certificates of computer course by
respondents - original petitioners. Learned Single Judge erred in allowing
writ petition in issue, which is premised on the disputed questions of fact.
The judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Tej Prakash Pathak
(supra) cannot come to the rescue of the respondents, since the same does
not apply to the facts of the present case case, as appellant - District
Panchayat, Rajkot has initiated a fresh selection process after the earlier
selection was set aside.
17. We may also record that the directions issued by the learned Single
Judge, while allowing the writ petition, has directed the appellant -
District Panchayat, Rajkot to include the names of respondents - original
petitioners in the select list dated 13.04.2012 for training for the post of
Multi-purpose Health Workers (Male) in accordance with the merit.
Unquestionably, the list dated 13.04.2012, prepared by the appellant -
District Panchayat, Rajkot is exhausted long ago and is not in existence;
hence, the directions to include the names of the respondents in the said
select list were uncalled for.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/621/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/06/2025
undefined
18. Thus, in view of the aforesaid, the present appeal is allowed. The
judgment and order dated 27.01.2025 passed the by learned Single Judge
in Special Civil Application No. 9602 of 2012 is quashed and set aside.
19. For the foregoing reasons, the present Letters Patent Appeals,
along with the connected Civil Applications, stand disposed of.
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
(R. T. VACHHANI, J)
MVP/24&25
