Gujarat High Court
Patel Padmaben Jayantibhai vs Director Of Primary Education on 15 September, 2025
Author: A.S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/748/2025 ORDER DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 748 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION/10021/2008
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 748 of 2025
=============================================
PATEL PADMABEN JAYANTIBHAI
Versus
DIRECTOR OF PRIMARY EDUCATION & ORS.
=============================================
Appearance:
MR SAMIR B GOHIL(5718) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MRS REKHA H KAPADIA(2246) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS. SHRUTI DHRUVE AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,4,8
MR DA SANKHESARA(5955) for the Respondent(s) No. 5,6,7
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
Date : 15/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1) The present Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the
judgment and order dated 18.12.2024 passed by the
learned Single Judge rejecting the writ petition filed by the
present appellant-original petitioner seeking cancellation
of appointments of the private respondent nos.5, 6 and 7
from the merit list or waiting list and further to give her
appointment to the post of Vidhya Sahayak.
2) Learned Advocate Mr.Samir B. Gohil, appearing for the
appellant, submitted that the learned Single Judge fell in
error in rejecting the writ petition for the reason that the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/748/2025 ORDER DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
waiting list has already been exhausted and fresh
recruitment processes have already been undertaken and
the waiting list has already been exhausted.
3) It is submitted that the appellant had also filed another
writ petition being Special Civil Application No.911 of
2007 praying for cancellation of the names of the
candidates, from the merit list, in which an interim relief
was granted to keep one post vacant and ultimately, the
present respondents were directed to consider the case,
since the respondent no.6 of the captioned writ petition
had resigned from service. It is submitted that thereafter,
the respondent passed an order on 23.07.2014 rejecting
the case of the petitioner. It is submitted that since, the
appellant did not make the selected candidates as party
respondents; she filed the captioned writ petition, which
has been rejected.
4) On a specific query raised by us to the learned Advocate
Mr.Gohil, at this stage, as to whether the appellant has
challenged the order dated 23.07.2014 before any forum
or not, he has fairly admitted that the said order is not
challenged.
5) We are inclined to reject the Letters Patent Appeal only on
this ground of non-challenge of the order dated 23.07.2014
passed by the respondents pursuant to the order dated
19.03.2014 passed by this Court in Special Civil
Application No.911 of 2007.
6) However, the following facts are necessary to incorporate
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/748/2025 ORDER DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
herein.
7) The petitioner - appellant participated in the recruitment
process undertaken for the appointment of the Vidhya
Sahayak in the year 2004, which was initiated by the
respondent no.3 by issuing an advertisement dated
10.07.2004. It appears that the petitioner was placed in
the waiting list and was not selected. The appellant -
petitioner filed the writ petition being Special Civil
Application No.911 of 2007, praying for the cancellation of
the appointments of the meritorious candidates and also of
such candidates who were kept in the waiting list. The said
writ petition was disposed of by the judgment dated
19.03.2014 by the learned Single Judge by recording that
since the private respondent-candidate of the captioned
Special Civil Application No.10021 of 2008, had resigned,
the respondent no.4 - Secretary, Education Department,
Government of Gujarat was directed to consider the case
of the appellant for the purpose of the appointment as
Vidhya Sahayak.
8) Thus, there were two parallel writ petitions filed by the
appellant (1) SCA No.911 of 2007 and (2) SCA No.10021 of
2008 that is the captioned writ petition. We have perused
the prayer clauses of both writ petitions and they are
verbatim, except that in SCA No.10021 of 2008, the
petitioner (appellant) has arraigned the private respondent
nos.5, 6 and 7. In both the writ petitions, the petitioner has
prayed for cancellation of their inclusion in the merit list.
9) The learned Single Judge in the judgment dated
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/748/2025 ORDER DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
19.03.2014 passed in Special Civil Application No.911 of
2007 on noticing the fact that since the respondent no.6 of
Special Civil Application No.10021 of 2008 has tendered
resignation, the Secretary, Education Department was
directed to consider the case of the appellant.
10) It is pertinent to note that, pursuant to the aforesaid
direction issued by the learned Single Judge vide order
dated 19.03.2014 passed in Special Civil Application
No.911 of 2007, the respondent-authority passed an order
dated 23.07.2014 rejecting the representation of the
petitioner, pointing out specifically that the life of the
waiting list has already expired, as per the policy of the
State Government. Unquestionably, the petitioner
(appellant) has not challenged the order dated 23.07.2014.
Despite this fact, the second writ petition i.e. the captioned
writ petition being Special Civil Application No.10021 of
2008 was further pursued by the petitioner and ultimately,
the same has been dismissed by the impugned judgment
dated 18.12.2024 by the learned Single Judge by recording
that since the subsequent recruitment process are already
undertaken in the year 2006, 2007 and 2008 and the
waiting list has already been exhausted, the appellant is
not entitled to any relief.
11) In wake of the aforesaid, undisputed facts and more
particularly, the failure on the part of the present
appellant to challenge the order dated 23.07.2014 passed
by the State Government, we are not inclined to interfere
with the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. The
Letters Patent Appeal fails and the same is rejected.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/748/2025 ORDER DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
Consequently, the connected Civil Application is disposed
of.
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
(L. S. PIRZADA, J)
JAIMIN PRAJAPATI/13
