Gujarat High Court
Cambay Education Society vs Chaudhari Vinodkumar Narsangbhai on 14 October, 2025
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1566/2019 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1566 of 2019
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4060 of 2009
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2019
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1566 of 2019
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 191 of 2020
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4060 of 2009
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2019 In R/LETTERS PATENT
APPEAL NO. 191 of 2020
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4060 of 2009
==========================================================
CAMBAY EDUCATION SOCIETY & ANR.
Versus
CHAUDHARI VINODKUMAR NARSANGBHAI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR JIGAR G GADHAVI(5613) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 10,2,3
MR KIRTIDEV R DAVE(3267) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 11,12,13,14,15,16,5,9
RULE UNSERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 4,7,8
UNSERVED EXPIRED (R) for the Respondent(s) No. 6
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.
JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 14/10/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)
1. The Letters Patent Appeal No.1566 of 2019 has been
filed on behalf of the Management of the Institution, namely
The Cambay Education Society, which is running Shri
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1566/2019 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
Madhavlal Shah High School at Khambhat, District Anand and
the Principal of the aforesaid Institution.
2. Another Letters Patent Appeal No.191 of 2020 has been
filed on behalf of the State respondents through the
Secretary, Education Department, District Education Officer
and two other authorities of the State.
3. The challenge in both the appeals are to the common
judgment and order dated 08.05.2019 passed by the writ
court in Special Civil Application No.4060 of 2009. The said
writ petition was filed with the prayers as under:-
"22(a) To quash and set aside the impugned decision of
the respondent no.3 D.E.O. as per Annexure-O whereby he
has decided that fresh interview proceedings may be
undertaken, though admittedly the D.E.Ο. has clearly
come to the conclusion that but for the malpractices which
had taken place in the interview held on 5-12-2008 the
petitioner would have been selected at rank no.1 and he
would have been given the appointment;
(b) To direct the respondent no.3 D.E.O. to grant approval
for appointment of the petitioner and to direct the
respondent nos.4 and 5 to give appointment to the
petitioner as Shikshan Sahayak in Shri Madhavlal Shah
High School, Khambhat, with all the consequential
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1566/2019 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
benefits on the basis of the petitioner's lawful selection at
2nd rank at the interview held on 5-12-2008 the
advertisement dated pursuant 3-10-2006 and in view of
the admitted facts that the candidate selected at 1 st rank
Mr. Pritesh Jivanbhai Patel had declined to accept the
appointment;
(c) To direct the respondent nos.1 and 2 to take
appropriate penal action against the respondent nos.4 to
11 and 13 for the illegalities committed by them in
connivance with each other and by wrongfully showing the
respondent nos.14 and 15 to be present at the interview
held on 5-12-2008;
(d) PENDING THE HEARING AND FINAL DISPOSAL OF
THIS PETITION, BE PLEASED to direct the respondent
no.3 to grant approval for the petitioner's appointment as
Shikshan Sahayak in Shri Madhavlal Shah High School,
Khambhat and to direct the respondent nos.4 and 5 to give
the appointment to the petitioner as such, pursuant to the
advertisement dated 3-10-2006 and interview held on 5-
12-2008 with all the consequential benefits;
(e) PENDING THE HEARING AND FINAL DISPOSAL OF
THIS PETITION, PLEASED BE to issue interim directions
in terms of paragraph 22(d) above;
(f) To grant any other appropriate and just relief/s;"
4. At the outset, we may note that both the appeals have
been heard together and are being decided by this common
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1566/2019 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
judgment with the consent of the learned counsel for the
parties.
5. While allowing the writ petition, setting aside the
impugned order dated 18.04.2009 passed by the District
Education Officer to initiate fresh selection for the post-in-
question, the learned Single Judge directed that the
respondent nos.4 and 5 [Management and the Principal of the
Institution] i.e.appellants herein are required to appoint
petitioner to the post of teacher as per the advertisement
dated 03.10.2006. It is also recorded by the learned Single
Judge that the learned advocate for the petitioner fairly
intimated that the petitioner was recently employed
elsewhere since 17.07.2018 only. In view of the same,
direction was issued to the State respondents to grant 50%
backwages to the petitioner and continuity of service with
effect from 05.12.2008, the date when offer for appointment
was given to the candidate placed at Sr. No.1 in the select-list,
who had refused to accept the offer.
6. It is further provided that the appointment of the
petitioner shall be governed by the rules and regulations,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1566/2019 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
which were prevalent at the relevant point of time and the
respondents are required to grant revised pay-scale, which is
revised from time-to-time, and further fix the seniority of the
petitioner w.e.f.05.12.2008. It is also directed by the learned
Single Judge that the respondent-State shall recover 50% of
the backwages to be awarded to the petitioner from the
respondent nos.4 and 5, namely the Management and the
Principal of the Institution concerned, as there were serious
allegations of fraud committed by the respondent nos.4 and 5
in denying appointment to the petitioner pursuant to the
select-list declared on 05.12.2008.
7. In the appeal filed on behalf of the original respondent
nos.4 an 5 namely the Management and the Principal of the
Institution, it was argued by Mr. Jigar G. Gadhavi, learned
advocate for the appellants that the appeal is confined to the
award of 50% backwages to the petitioner and the challenge
is on the principle of 'no work no pay'. It was argued that
since the petitioner has not been appointed to the post-in-
question and has never worked, there was no question of
payment of backwages to him. It is also submitted that when
there was no claim of the petitioner for the backwages in the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1566/2019 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
prayer clause of the writ petition, there was no question of
grant of backwages. The reliance is placed on the decision of
U.P. State Brassware Corporation Ltd. Vs. Uday Narayan
Pandey reported in (2006) 1 SCC 479 to substantiate the
above submissions.
8. In the appeal filed on behalf of the State appellants, it is
sought to be submitted that no infirmity can be attached to
the order dated 18.04.2009 passed by the District Education
Officer in issuing directions to hold fresh selection, inasmuch
as, serious irregularities were found in the selection process.
9. Mr. Sanjay Udhwani, learned Assistant Government
Pleader for the State respondents would rely on the affidavit
of respondent no.3 namely the District Education Officer filed
before the writ Court to submit that since the selection
process was found to be faulty, inasmuch as, irregularities
and fraud had been committed by the Interview Committee
and the Management Committee, the select-list cannot be
given effect to. The submission is that even a First
Information Report was lodged against 09 persons including
the members of the Selection Committee and after
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1566/2019 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
investigation, chargesheet has been filed against 06 persons
constituting the selection committee. It is contended that the
whole interview process was illegal and the result of the
interview was liable to be cancelled.
10. Placing the affidavit of the District Education Officer, it
submitted that even the trustees of the society had been
removed and a communication dated 27.08.2009 had been
sent to the Charity Commissioner, Vadodara intimating the
said removal. Penalty of Rs.50,000/- has been imposed upon
the School Management. The Principal of the Institution who
was member of the Interview Committee namely R. R. Suthar
has also been penalized with the penalty of Rs.15,000/-. Two
teachers of the Institution have been penalized with the
penalty of Rs.10,000/- each. A proposal recommending de-
recognition of the school has also been sent to the Gujarat
Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Board [in short
referred as 'The Board'].
11. However, in the interest and welfare of the children, for
the larger cause of education, the board has decided not to
de-recognize the institution, but to impose penalty on the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1566/2019 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
society namely Cambay Education Society, Khambhat. A copy
of the order passed by the Gujarat Secondary and Higher
Secondary Education Board is also appended as
Annexure-'R6' to the affidavit of respondent no.3. It is also
stated in the affidavit of respondent no.3 that Mr. D.K. Patel,
representative of the board who was member of the interview
committee was also removed from the penal of interview
committee by an order dated 20.06.2009 passed by the
Gujarat Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Board.
12. With these facts placed before us with the aid of the
affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of respondent no.3 namely
District Education Officer, Anand, appended at page-'310' of
the paper-book of Letters Patent Appeal No.1566 of 2019 filed
by the Management, it is submitted by Mr. Sanjay Udhwani,
learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the State
respondents that the Interview Committee and the Managing
Committee of the school had included 02 outsiders, who were
impleaded as respondent nos.14 and 15 in the writ petition, by
placing them at the rank nos.2 and 3 in the select-list
prepared after the interview held on 05.12.2008 for the post-
in-question. It is contended that the respondent nos.14 and 15
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1566/2019 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
were rank outsiders and the fact of their inclusion in the
select-list itself is sufficient to quash the entire selection
process. The Management Committee and the members of
Interview Committee were found guilty of committing fraud
and illegality in preparation of the select-list by inclusion of
names of two rank outsiders in the select-list [impleaded as
respondent nos.14 and 15 in the writ petition]. The
submission is that in light of these irregularities and fraud
committed by the Management Committee and the Interview
Committee, no infirmity can be attached to the decision of the
District Education Officer to cancel the entire selection
process and issue directions to the Management to hold fresh
selection.
13. Taking note of the above submissions before proceeding
further, we may record that earlier a Special Civil Application
No.2858 of 2009 was filed by the petitioner herein with the
prayer to hold and declare that the petitioner is selected in
the interview for the post of Shikshan Sahayak in the
Institution namely Madhavlal Shah High School, Khambhat
pursuant to the advertisement dated 03.10.2006. A further
prayer therein was to direct the District Education Officer to
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1566/2019 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
grant approval for appointment of the petitioner and further
to direct the respondents to give appointment to the petitioner
as Shikshan Sahayak in the aforesaid institution. It was also
prayed that an inquiry be held for the illegalities and fraud
committed by the members of the selection committee in
connivance with the office of the District Education Officer, by
including the names of respondent nos.14 and 15 therein in
the select-list, in the light of statements made by the
respondent nos.14 and 15, themselves.
14. Before proceeding further, we may record that an order
dated 08.04.2009 has been passed by the writ Court therein,
wherein it is noted that respondent no.14 namely Mr.
Alpeshbhai Ranchhodbhai Patel, and respondent no.15 namely
Satishbhai Bhagwanbhai Patel were personally present in the
Court. The respondent no.14 namely Mr. Alpeshbhai
Ranchhodbhai Patel made a statement at the bar in Gujarati
which has been translated and noted in the order dated
08.04.2009. It is categorically stated by the respondent no.14
in his statement made in the Court that he had never received
any Interview Call from the Management or the Principal of
the Institution namely respondent nos.4 and 5 therein, and as
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1566/2019 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
such, there was no occasion for him to appear in the interview
held on 05.12.2008. He had never signed the Rojkam
suggesting his presence in the interview held on 05.12.2008.
His alleged signature in the Rojkam showing his attendance in
the interview on 05.12.2008 was forged one. It is also stated
by respondent no.4 before the writ Court that there was no
reason for him to participate in the interview as he was
already working in another school namely Karve High School,
Mehsana and he was on duty on 05.12.2008.
15. The statement of respondent no.15 namely Satishbhai
Bhagwanbhai Patel made at the bar in Gujarati and translated
in English has also been recorded in the order dated
08.04.2009, wherein he stated that he had never appeared
before the Interview Committee in the interview held on
05.12.2008. In-fact, he was serving in an institution at Shree
Vallabh Vidhyalaya, Teniwada, Tal.Vadgam, District
Banaskantha permanently and he was on duty on 05.12.2008
in the said institution and, as such, there was no question of
him having participated in the interview held on the said date.
16. We may note from the content of the order dated
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1566/2019 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
08.04.2009 that the interview committee held the interview on
05.12.2008 in an institution named as Vallabh Vidhyanagar
Camp. The order dated 08.04.2009 further records that even
the Principal of the said Institution namely Shree Vallabh
Vidhyalaya, Teniwada, Tal.Vadgam, District Banaskantha
impleaded as respondent no.17 was personally present in the
Court.
17. With the above noted facts recorded in the order dated
08.04.2009, it is evident that the names of respondent nos.14
an 15 were added in the Rojkam for interview dated
05.12.2008 and then their names were illegally added in the
select list at Sr. Nos.2 and 3, when they were neither the
applicants nor had ever participated in the selection process.
18. It may not be out of place to mention here that vide
order dated 08.04.2009, this Court had directed the District
Education Officer to conduct a detailed inquiry against the
Management and Principal of the Institution and also against
all concerned and further, if allegations are found to be true
on inquiry by the District Education Officer, it warranted de-
recognition of the school run by the respondent no.4 -
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1566/2019 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
Management and actions against the members of the
Selection Committee.
19. It seems that after the said directions were issued by
this Court, the proceedings for imposing penalty against the
members of the Interview Committee, the Managing
Committee, Principal and Teachers of the Institution as well
as lodging of the First Information Report were undertaken
upon inquiry conducted by the District Education Officer.
20. It is, thus, evident that all proceedings were undertaken
by the District Education Officer to examine the correctness of
the select-list only after the directions were issued by this
Court in the order dated 08.04.2009, on recording the
statements of respondent nos.14 and 15. The impugned order
dated 18.04.2009 for holding fresh selection, was passed,
thereafter.
21. We may further record that the Special Civil Application
No.2858 of 2009 was finally disposed of vide judgment and
order dated 24.04.2009 giving liberty to the petitioner to
challenge the order dated 18.04.2009 passed by the District
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1566/2019 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
Education Officer taking note of the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no
justification for the District Education Officer to quash and set
aside the entire selection process and in-fact the petitioner
was required to be appointed by granting prayers made in the
said writ petition itself.
22. A perusal of the order dated 24.04.2009 of disposal of
the aforesaid writ petition indicates that the writ Court
without expressing any opinion on the merits of the order
dated 18.04.2009 passed by the District Education Officer had
granted liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition
challenging the same. The occasion has, thus, arisen to file
the Special Civil Application No.4060 of 2009 to challenge the
order dated 18.04.2009 passed by the District Education
Officer, which has been allowed by the order impugned.
23. Taking note of the stand of the State - appellants in the
affidavit placed before us by the learned Assistant
Government Pleader, we may proceed to look into the affidavit
of the respondent nos.4 and 5 namely the Management and
the Principal of the Institution, i.e. the appellants herein filed
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1566/2019 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
in the previous petition namely, Special Civil Application
No.2858 of 2009. The affidavit of the Management of the
Institution, namely respondent no.5 in the Special Civil
Application No.4060 is at page-'260' of the paper-book
wherein only this much is stated that the necessary
respondent/ deponent adopts the contentions, averments,
statements and submissions made in the affidavit-in-reply filed
on behalf of the Management in Special Civil Application
No.2858 of 2009. It is noted that there is no whisper in the
said affidavit about the preparation of the select-list, pursuant
to the interview held on 05.12.2008. The affidavit of the
Principal of the Institution therein namely appellant no.2
herein only narrates the proceedings which were conducted
by the school management for notifying the vacancy vide
advertisement published on 03.10.2006, on grant of 'no
objection certificate' by the District Education Officer dated
13.09.2006. It is stated in the affidavit of the Principal of the
Institution namely appellant no.2 [appended at page no.'131'
of the paper-book] that pursuant to the aforesaid
advertisement, the school management had received 12
applications and out of the same, one application being time
barred was rejected at the threshold. Names of prospective
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1566/2019 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
candidates were also called from the Employment Exchange
in view of the communication dated 05.07.2007 of the District
Education Officer, Anand. 30 names were received from the
Employment Exchange and in all 30 Plus (+) 11 candidates,
whose applications have been received directly by the school
management were called for interview.
24. It is contended in the affidavit of the Principal of the
Institution that on 24.11.2008, the District Education Officer
directed the school management to send the interview call
letters to the candidates shortlisted in the merit list.
Interviews were held on 05.12.2008 in the Camp organized by
the Office of the District Education Officer, Anand, at R.P.T.P.
High School at Vallabh Vidyanagar. In the interview, the
representatives of the management as also the
representatives of the board were present. The entire
management of the interview held on 05.12.2008 was made
by the Office of the District Education Officer and as a result
whereof, one Shri Patel Pritesh Jivanbhai came to be selected.
25. The Principal stated therein that the petitioner as well as
respondent nos.14 and 15 were sent interview call letters by
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1566/2019 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
Registered Post, as was sent to other candidates who were
called for interview. Even, the Registered A.D. Postal receipts
of the call letters sent to the respondent nos.14 and 15 were
appended as Annexure 'D' to the aforesaid affidavit to submit
that it appears that they had received the call letters on
28.11.2008. The further contention in the affidavit of the
Principal is that the merit-list upon scrutiny of the
applications of all candidates, who had submitted their
application forms pursuant the advertisement and whose
names were sent by the Employment Exchange was required
to be submitted to the District Education Officer before the
interview. It is, however, admitted that the name of the
petitioner was at Sr. No.5 in the said list. There is, however,
further silence about the names of the respondent nos.14 and
15 being included in the merit-list sent to the District
Education Officer or the said candidates having participated
in the interview held on 05.12.2008.
26. In fact the affidavit-in-reply filed by the Principal of the
Institution in the previous petition namely Special Civil
Application No.2858 of 2009, which has been appended at
page no.'131' of the paper-book, placed before us, is silent
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1566/2019 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
about the participation of respondent nos.14 and 15 in the
interview process. It is though sought to be stated therein that
the statement made by the respondent no.14 before this Court
on 08.04.2009 was without any basis and against the weight
of evidence. Only this much is stated that the respondent
no.14 had received the interview call letter. Thus, there is no
clarity nor there is any statement as to how the names of the
respondent nos.14 and 15 were shown in the Rojkam of the
interview held on 05.12.2008. It is also not disclosed as to
how and whether the names of the respondent nos.14 and 15
were included in the select-list sent to the District Education
Officer, at Sr. Nos.2 and 3 while placing the petitioner at Sr.
no.4.
27. Further, from the affidavit of the District Education
Officer, atleast, it is evident that the management committee
was required to submit the list of the selected candidates
immediately after the interviews were over and as per the
Rules, the District Education Officer was required to grant
sanction for appointment to the selected candidates, before
issuing offer letter of appointment.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1566/2019 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
28. It is also evident from the affidavit of the District
Education Officer that the select-list was forwarded by the
School Management and the name of one Mr. Pritesh
Jivanbhai Patel was shown as the first ranked selected
candidate therein. The District Education Officer in his
affidavit has stated that as per Rule-18 of the Rules framed by
the Gujarat Secondary and Higher Secondary Board, 15 days
time was required to be given for appointment and
resumption of the duty by the selected candidates. It is also
stated that the sanction letter dated 05.12.2008 was issued
wherein condition no.4 stated that if within 15 days the
selected candidate did not resume the duty then the name of
the next candidate was to be sent for sanction.
29. The District Education Officer in his affidavit has further
stated that as per the procedure, the management was
required to send the name of the second placed candidate in
the select-list when the first placed candidate had not
resumed the duty. In the instant case, Mr. Pritesh Patel had
refused to accept the appointment because he was also
appointed as Sikshan Sahayak [in a different school], and
hence, the next step for the management was to send the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1566/2019 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
name of second placed candidate so as to grant sanction for
appointment of such candidate at the ends of the District
Education Officer.
30. Having said that, pertinent is to note that the District
Education Officer though made a statement in the affidavit
that the list of the selected candidates was submitted by the
Management after the interview and he had also granted
sanction to the selection of first placed candidate with the
condition that in case the said candidate did not resume the
duty within 15 days, the name of second placed candidate was
required to be forwarded. But the fact remains that it seems
that no independent inquiry was made by the District
Education Officer with the record of selection about the
select-list forwarded to him prior to the grant of sanction vide
letter dated 05.12.2008 to the first placed candidate. The
select-list forwarded to the District Education Officer, as
admitted in the affidavit, has not been placed on record of the
said affidavit though it is sought to be stated therein that the
respondent nos.14 and 15 had been shown as second and
third ranked candidates as alleged by the petitioner.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1566/2019 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
31. It is, thus, evident that an evasive reply has been
submitted by the District Education Officer in Special Civil
Application No.4060 of 2009, out of which the present appeal
has arisen, with regard to the insertion of the names of the
respondent nos.14 and 15 as second and third ranked
candidates. There is a complete silence in the affidavit of the
Management about the select-list prepared after interview
dated 05.12.2008. Only response of respondent no.5 namely
the Principal of the Institution, i.e. appellant no.2 herein has
been filed in the Special Civil Application No.4060 of 2009,
which is appended at page no.'303' of the paper-book of the
appeal filed by the Management and the Principal herein. The
said affidavit is, however, silent about the selection process
and the select-list prepared pursuant to the interview dated
05.12.2008.
32. From the facts noted herein above, it is evident that
neither the District Education Officer nor the School
Management and the Principal of the Institution had come out
with clean hands before the writ Court. It is not known as to
who is responsible for manipulation in the select-list prepared
on 05.12.2008. The select-list has not seen the light of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1566/2019 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
day. The inquiry conducted by the District Education Officer is
pursuant to the order dated 08.04.2009 passed by this Court
in the first round of litigation initiated by the petitioner in
the Special Civil Application No.2858 of 2009.
33. It is, thus, difficult for us to accept the stand of the State
appellant that the entire selection was a result of the
fraudulent exercise conducted by the Selection Committee or
the Interview Board. No one knows as to who had
manipulated the select-list dated 05.12.2008. However, the
fact remains that the entries in the Rojkam of the interview
held on 05.12.2008 had illegally recorded the names of the
respondent nos.14 and 15 who had categorically denied
before this Court that they were called for interview and they
had appeared in the interview held on 05.12.2008. For
entries in the Rojkam, reference of which is found in the order
dated 08.04.2009, the fault can only be attributed to the
Management and Principal of the Institution.
34. It is, thus, evident that interpolation in the select-list was
made after the process of interview was completed on
05.12.2008 pursuant to the advertisement where-under the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1566/2019 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
petitioner had participated in the interview.
35. Considering the above, we find that it was incumbent
upon the District Education Officer to call for the entire
record of selection and peruse the same before grant of
sanction for appointment whether this was done or not is not
disclosed. While making the inquiry under the order of this
Court again nothing had been done. The learned Single Judge,
therefore, has rightly recorded that two persons were
fraudulently introduced by the Selection Committee and if the
names of those candidates are excluded from the select-list,
the petitioner would be the second placed candidate. There is
no dispute or doubt about the participation of the petitioner in
the selection process and the marks allocated to him. For the
fact that the first placed candidate had refused to accept the
offer of appointment, the petitioner being second placed
candidate was clearly entitled for appointment as per the
Rules.
36. Considering the above, the learned Single Judge has
rightly held that the District Education Officer has committed
an error in directing for fresh selection, when there was no
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1566/2019 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
dispute about the marks assigned for the interview and that
the same were allotted as per the Circular issued by the
District Education Officer. It is rightly held that the
advertisement for the post-in-question which necessitated the
requisite qualification, which the petitioner fulfilled, has not
been interfered with. The result is that for illegal act of the
Management and the Interview Committee by making
interpolation of two outsiders in the select-list, the entire
selection process could not have been cancelled.
37. As far as the petitioner is concerned, no fault in the
entire process of selection or interview can be attributed to
him. The petitioner has duly participated in the selection
process, appeared in the interview and approached this Court
at an appropriate point of time when the Management refused
to offer appointment to him though he was the second placed
candidate as per the marks allocated by the Interview
Committee. In the first round of litigation, the petitioner made
a categorical statement that two rank outsiders were illegally
shown as selected candidates by interpolation for placing
them at Sr. No.2 and 3 of the select-list and the said
statement was found to be correct on an inquiry made by the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1566/2019 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
Court under the order dated 08.04.2009.
38. In this scenario, it is evident that the respondent nos.4
and 5 namely the appellants - Management and the Principal
of the Institution have been instrumental in refusing to offer
appointment to the petitioner, when the first placed candidate
had turned down the offer.
39. As noted herein before, as per the Rules and Condition
no.4 in the sanction letter dated 05.12.2008 sent by the
District Education Officer, the Management was required to
send the name of the second placed candidate for sanction,
when the first placed candidate had refused to join, by turning
down the offer of appointment.
40. For the fault on the part of the appellants namely
Management and the Principal of the Institution, the
petitioner cannot be made to suffer. Resultantly, the learned
Single Judge has rightly reached at the conclusion that the
petitioner is entitled for appointment with continuity of
service w.e.f. 05.12.2008, when the first placed candidate had
denied the offer of appointment.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1566/2019 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
41. For the fact that the petitioner has been illegally denied
the appointment at the behest of the Management and the
Principal of the Institution, for the fraud committed by them
by making interpolation in the select-list and the Rojkam after
interview, the learned Single Judge instead of imposing
exemplary cost upon them including the State authorities had
moulded the relief to award 50% backwages to the petitioner
who suffered at the ends of the Management and the State
authorities, for their illegal action and inaction both.
42. The learned Single Judge has, thus, rightly reached at
the conclusion that for the illegal act of the Management and
the Principal of the Institution for making interpolation in the
Rojkam and the select-list, they are required to bear the
backwages awarded to the petitioner.
43. The investigation and inquiry which was conducted after
intervention of this Court or imposition of the penalty upon
the Management and the Principal and action against the
members of the Selection Committee cannot be a reason to
quash the entire selection process by the District Education
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1566/2019 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
Officer, by order dated 18.04.2009 which was passed it seems
without conducting any further inquiry into the records of the
selection.
44. The stand of the State appellant to seek the dismissal of
the writ petition on the premise of the illegality or fraud
committed in the selection process is, thus, liable to be turned
down.
45. The principle of 'no work no pay' as is applicable in the
event of award of backwages as well as the principles laid
down in the decision of the Apex Court in the case of U.P.
State Brassware Corporation Ltd. Vs. Uday Narayan
Pandey reported in (2006) 1 SCC 479 are not applicable in
the facts and circumstances of the present case. The
contention of the Management and the Principal that the
petitioner is not entitled for any backwages on the principle of
'no work no pay' is, accordingly turned down.
46. Lastly, it is pointed by the learned counsel for the
respondent/original petitioner that while admitting the Letters
Patent Appeal No.1566 of 2019 filed by the Management and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1566/2019 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
the Principal of the Institution, by order dated 16.09.2019,
this Court has issued specific directions to the learned counsel
for the appellants as also the learned Assistant Government
Pleader to ensure that the appointment be given to the writ
petitioner/respondent herein within a period of one month
from the said date and the recovery of backwages as awarded
by the learned Single Judge has been stayed subject to the
said condition. It is further provided that in case, appointment
is not provided within a one month from the said date i.e.
16.09.2019 to the writ petitioner/respondent herein, it would
be open for the respondent to claim the backwages by
appropriately applying before this Court.
47. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the
respondent/ original petitioner that the petitioner has been
given appointment only on 13.11.2024 and he has joined and
working. However, not a single penny towards salary etc. has
been paid to him so far, leave apart payment of backwages as
per the directions of this Court in the order dated 16.09.2019.
48. Taking note of the above, we provide that apart from the
50% of backwages to which the petitioner is entitled under
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1566/2019 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
the judgment and order dated 16.09.2019 passed by the
learned Single Judge, w.e.f.16.10.2019, i.e.after expiry of
period of one month from the date of order admitting the
appeal of the Management, the petitioner shall be entitled to
full backwages up till 13.11.2024 as if he was appointed and
working on the post-in-question w.e.f.16.10.2019.
49. The petitioner shall further be entitled to the arrears of
the salary and other allowances w.e.f. 13.11.2024. The unpaid
arrears of salary and other allowances w.e.f.13.11.2024 are
payable to the petitioner alongwith interest at the rate of 9%
per annum. The current salary alongwith the allowances shall
be paid to the petitioner on or before 05.11.2025 for the
month of October, 2025 with interest at rate of 9% per
annum. From November, 2025 the current salary shall be paid
in a timely manner as and when the same falls due as also the
allowances admissible to the post, failing which it would be
for the petitioner to initiate its action.
50. With the above, both the appeals filed by the
Management and the Principal of Institution as also the
appeal files by the State authorities including the District
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1566/2019 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
Education Officer are hereby dismissed. No order as to cost.
Consequently, the civil application for stay would not
survive and the same are disposed of, accordingly.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ )
(D.N.RAY,J)
A. B. VAGHELA
