Gujarat High Court
Bharatkumar Bavabhai Gurjar vs Union Of India on 27 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/95/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
Reserved On :-
Pronounced On : 27/06/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 95 of 2014
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
BHARATKUMAR BAVABHAI GURJAR
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR P P MAJMUDAR(5284) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR. NISHIT P GANDHI(6946) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS SURBHI BHATI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 3
MR MK PATEL(633) for the Respondent(s) No. 4
MR NIKUNT K RAVAL(5558) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR P C CHAUDHARI(5770) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR YOGI K GADHIA(5913) for the Respondent(s) No. 4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
CAV JUDGMENT
1. This petition is filed for the following prayers:
"24(A) YOUR LORDHSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ
of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/95/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
other appropriate writ, order or directions quashing and
setting aside the decision/communication dated 29.11.2013
issued by respondent No.4 herein (at ANNEXURE-I hereto)
and further be pleased to direct that the petitioner's
allotment as Probationary Agricultural Field Officer to
respondent No.4-Bank by respondent No.2 shall be continued
and the petitioner may be appointed on the said post along
with all benefits attached therewith;
(B) During the pendency and final disposal of the present
petition YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to direct the
respondents herein to keep one post of Probationary
Agricultural Field Officer vacant in respondetn No.4-Bank;
(C) xxxxx"
2. The brief facts leading to filing of this petition are
such that on 24.1.2013, an advertisement was issued by
respondent no.2 herein inviting applications for the post of
Agricultural Field Officer (Scale-I) and the petitioner
submitted his on-line application; that the petitioner appeared
in the written examination conducted on 17.3.2013 and he
was called for interview and the same was conducted on
29.5.2013; the petitioner remained present in the interview
and submitted the relevant documents including his caste
certificate; that the combined result for Common Written
Examination (CWE) and interview for recruitment of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/95/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
Specialist Officers was declared and the petitioner obtained
49.6 as combined score which was more than the minimum
qualifying marks; that the petitioner received an e-mail on
4.10.2013 that based on his performance, he is provisionally
allotted Corporation Bank subject to his fulfilling the
eligibility criteria and certain other conditions; that on
15.10.2013, the petitioner received an e-mail from respondent
no.4 informing that the caste mentioned by the petitioner
does not feature in the Central List and the clarifications of
the petitioner were invited within seven days; the petitioner
again submitted the caste certificate stating that the
petitioner belongs to "Hindu Gurjar Prajapati" which is
recognized as Socially and Educationally Backward Class
Caste under the Government of India, Ministry of Welfare;
that on 29.11.2013, the respondent no.4 issued the impugned
decision/communication stating that since the petitioner's caste
is not in the central list of OBC for the state of Gujarat,
the petitioner is not eligible for appointment under OBC
category and hence, the petitioner's allotment is cancelled and
therefore this petition is filed.
3. Heard learned advocates for the parties.
3.1 Learned advocate Mr. Gandhi has contended that
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/95/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
the Government of Gujarat has issued the certificate whereby
the petitioner is shown as Kumbhar (Prajapati). He has
stated that the petitioner is otherwise qualified and was
selected by the respondent authority and was allotted to the
Corporation Bank and was about to join the bank, at that
point of time the Corporation Bank has raised the issue
about the validity of the caste certificate produced by the
petitioner and the caste shown by the petitioner did not
feature in the central list of OBC for the State of Gujarat.
He has submitted that the central list is referring to
Kumbhar Prajapati, Varia Prajapati etc. but there is no
provision of Hindu Gurjar Prajapati and therefore the
appointment of petitioner is not given though the petitioner
is entitled and therefore the decision/communication dated
29.11.23 issued by respondent no.4 is required to be quashed
and set aside and further direction is required to be given
that the petitioner's allotment as Probationary Agricultural
Field Officer to respondent no.4 by respondent no.2 be
continued.
3.2 He has further submitted that essentially he is
not praying any relief against respondent no.2 as respondent
no.2 is only Nodal Agency for procedure for selecting the
candidate and thereafter, after his selection, the petitioner
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/95/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
was allotted to the respondent no.4 bank and no effective
prayers are made against respondent no.2 and therefore it
cannot be said that the petition is not maintainable as
respondent no.2 is not a state.
3.3 He further submitted that even the contention
raised by the respondent that the petition is required to be
filed within the jurisdiction of Mumbai is not proper as
considering the application etc. made by the petitioner, the
cause of action is arising within the territory of Gujarat, this
petition is maintainable before this Court and therefore, he
has submitted that the prayers in the present petition are
required to be allowed.
4. Learned Advocate Mr. Gadhia for respondent no.4-
Bank has strongly opposed the said submission and has
further contended that such submission is misconceived. By
referring to his affidavit-in-reply, he has submitted that the
caste certificate which is produced is not tallied with the list
of Central Government for the caste OBC. He has submitted
that the caste certificate submitted by the petitioner should
be tallied `letter by letter' with the caste which is
mentioned in the Central List of OBC for the State of
Gujarat. He has further submitted that on scrutinizing the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/95/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
papers, the respondent no.4 found that the caste mentioned
in the certificate produced by the petitioner did not feature
in the Central list of OBC for the State of Gujarat.
Therefore, the respondent no.4-Bank sent an e-mail dated
15.10.2013 to the petitioner stating that on scrutiny of the
documents supplied by him during the selection process, as
he has applied for the post under OBC category and the
caste mentioned by him did not feature in the Central list of
OBC for the State of Gujarat, a clarification was sought
from the petitioner by the present respondent. The petitioner
instead of giving the clarification and explanation to the
same, merely forwarded a copy of the certificate dated
24.5.2013 purportedly issued by the Government of Gujarat
certifying that the petitioner belongs to Hindu Gurjar
Prajapati, which is recognized as a Socially and Educationally
Backward Caste. He has further submitted that since the
respondent no.4-bank is bound to follow the central list of
OBC, the Bank by letter dated 29.11.2013 informed the
petitioner that his caste is not featured in the Central list of
OBC for the State of Gujarat and therefore, he is not eligible
for the appointment for the post of Agricultural Field Officer
under OBC and hence his provisional allotment was
cancelled. He has further submitted that the allotment of the
petitioner was only provisional and that allotment does not
amount to appointment and therefore, the petitioner has no
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/95/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
right as a matter of claim. He has further submitted that
the case of the petitioner is otherwise also not maintainable
on merits as at the time of scrutiny and verification of the
documents of the petitioner, it was observed by respondent
no.4 that the petitioner was belonging to OBC category
within the community of the Hindu Gurjar Prajapati which is
not recognized as OBC category for the State of Gujarat
under the Government of India resolution dated 6/12/1999
and subsequent resolution dated 16.6.2011 of mentioning
Central List of OBC.
4.1 He further submitted that the petition is not
maintainable as respondent no.2 is not State under Article 12
of the Constitution of India. Moreover, in the advertisement
it is specifically mentioned in clause-6 that "any result in
dispute arising out of this advertisement including the
recruitment process shall be subject to the selected
jurisdiction of courts situated at Mumbai. He has submitted
that by filling up the online application form, the petitioner
has himself agreed to oust the jurisdiction of this Court to
entertain the petition. Therefore, he has submitted that the
petition is required to be rejected.
4.2 In support of his submissions, he has referred to
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/95/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
the judgment dated 11.10.2011 passed in Special Civil
Application No.13886 of 2011 on the issue of jurisdiction. He
has also relied on the decision of the Allahabad High Court
reported in 2006(62) ALR 428 and in the case of Khilendra
Singh V/s Union of India reported in [2018(156)FLR 294] .
Therefore, he has submitted that the present petition
deserves to be dismissed and as it is meritless.
5. I have considered the rival submissions made at
the bar. Prima facie, it transpires that there is substance in
the submission made by the respondents that the respondent
no.2 is neither a government agency nor funded by
Government and therefore, respondent no.2 cannot be
considered as a State as defined under Article 12 of the
Constitution of India.
6. Further, it is also relevant to note that at the
time of filing of online application form, the petitioner has
also accepted the conditions mentioned along with the
advertisement of which clause 6 mentions that "Any result in
dispute arising out of this advertisement including the
recruitment process shall be subject to the selected
jurisdiction of courts situated at Mumbai". Therefore, the
second contention raised by the respondents that this Court
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/95/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
lacks jurisdiction also has substance.
7. Further, it transpires that on scrutiny of the caste
certificate, it is found by respondent no.4 that the caste
certificate which is produced by the present petitioner
mentions Hindu Gurjar Prajapati and the same is not
recognized in the list published by the Central government
for state of Gujarat under OBC category under the
Government Resolution dated 6.12.1999 and 16.6.2011. It is
required to be noted that the caste name of `Gujjar
Prajapati' is included at serial no.84 of the Central list for
the State of Gujarat and both the caste names i.e. Gurjar
Prajapati and Gujjar Prajapati are different and there is
discrepancy in the name of the caste of the petitioner as per
the OBC certificate. It is needless to say that merely the
process of allotment will not amount to automatic
appointment of successful candidates even after clearing the
necessary examination if the authority, at the time of
scrutiny of the documents, found that the petitioner is not
having the requisite qualification or is not holding the
necessary certificate. Respondent no.4 is a nationalized bank
and it has to follow the guidelines and therefore the action
taken by the respondent no.4 seems to be in conformity with
the guidelines and instructions prescribed in the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/95/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
notification/advertisement dated 10.1.2013. It is also required
to be noted that the Bank or either of the respondent have
no right to deviate from the guidelines and conditions laid
down in the said advertisement.
8. Further, it transpires that the validity of score
card for the provisional allotment of merit listed candidates
and their appointment against the reported vacancies by the
participating organisations, the CWE-SPL-II was over on
31.3.2014. We are now in the year 2025.
9. A reference to the judgment rendered in the case
of Khilendra Singh (supra), wherein it is observed in
paragraphs 2, 4 and 5 as under, would be fruitful:
"2. The Appellant applied for appointment to the posts of
Subject Matter Specialist (Crop Protection & Crop
Psychology) in Vivekananda Parvatiya Krishi Anusandhan
Sansthan, Almora. The Appellant belongs to "Jaat" caste
which was falling within the category of Other Backward
Classes (OBCs) in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The Tesildar,
Thakurdwara, Moradabad (U.P.) issued a certificate in favour
of the Appellant stating that he belongs to Other Backward
Classes on 22nd June, 2007. The Appellant was appointed
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/95/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
on 2nd January, 2008 in a post reserved for OBCs. A show-
cause notice was issued to the Appellant asking him to
explain as to why his appointment should not be cancelled
as the community to which he belongs is not found in the
Central List of OBCs. The Appellant submitted his
explanation on 6th November, 2010. An inquiry was
conducted and on the basis of the recommendation of the
Inquiry Committee, the services of the Appellant were
terminated on 20th November, 2010. He approached the
High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital by filing Writ
Petition challenging the order of termination. The Writ
Petition was dismissed vide judgment dated 24th February,
2011, the legality of which is assailed in the above Appeal.
4. By a proceeding dated 10th September, 1993 the
Government of India finalised the Central List of OBCs for
each State. A common List for the State of Uttar Pradesh
was annexed to the said proceedings in which the caste of
"Jaat" was not included. The matter pertaining to the
inclusion of "Jaat" in the Central List of OBCs for the
States of Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Haryana and
Rajasthan came up for consideration before the Commission
in the year 1997. The National Commission for Backward
Classes recommended inclusion of "Jaat" caste in the OBCs
only for the State of Rajasthan and not the other three
States. On the basis of the power of review that was
conferred on the National Commission for Backward Classes,
the matter was examined afresh. The National Commission
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/95/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
for Backward Classes conducted hearings in Delhi to
consider the request of "Jaat" caste in the Central List of
OBCs for nine States including the State of Uttar Pradesh.
The National Commission for Backward Classes advised the
Central Government not to include the "Jaat" caste/
community in the Central List of OBCs. While rejecting the
recommendation made by the National Commission for
Backward Classes, the Central Government issued a
notification including "Jaat" caste/ community in the Central
List of OBCs for the States of Uttar Pradesh/ Uttarakhand
and seven other States in 2014.
5. A perusal of the facts that are stated in the preceding
paragraph on the basis of the counter affidavit filed by the
National Commission for Backward Classes would show that
"Jaat" caste/ community is in the Central List of OBCs for
the State of Uttarakhand from 2014. The Central List of
OBCs prepared for the States of Uttar Pradesh in 1993 did
not include the "Jaat" caste/ community. The State of
Uttarakhand was formed in 2000. By a Resolution passed in
2010, the National Commission for Backward Classes
resolved that till the Central List for the State of
Uttarakhand was finalized, the List that was in operation in
the State of Uttar Pradesh will be followed for appointment
to the Central posts reserved for OBCs. The advertisement
and selection in this case was made in the year 2007 when
the caste to which the Appellant belongs i.e. "Jaat" was
not in the Central List for Uttar Pradesh."
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/95/2014 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
10. In view of the above discussion, this petition is
required to be dismissed. Accordingly dismissed with no order
as to costs.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J)
SRILATHA
