Gujarat High Court
Nishaben D/O Kalubhai Damor vs State Of Gujarat on 26 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/15258/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15258 of 2020
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==========================================================
NISHABEN D/O KALUBHAI DAMOR
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VAIBHAV A VYAS(2896) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR. PARTH PATEL, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1-STATE
MR. R.D.KINARIWALA(6146) for the Respondent(s) No. 2-DDO
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 26/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate for the
respondent and learned AGP waive service of notice of rule
on behalf of respective respondents. With the consent of the
parties, the matter is heard at length for final hearing.
2. The present petition is filed by the petitioner for
seeking the following reliefs:
"8. (A) Quash and set aside the final Merit list at
Annexure-G to this petition and further be pleased to direct
the respondent authorities to prepare a fresh merit list, as
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/15258/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025
undefined
per its policy, by granting appropriate weightage to the
educational qualifications of the petitioner, and / or
(B) Quash and set aside the action of the respondent
authorities of treating the petitioner as ineligible for
appointment to the post of Anganwadi Worker and further
be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider
the case of the petitioner for appointment to the said post
by revising the final merit list, as per its policy, by
granting appropriate weightage to the educational
qualifications of the petitioner, and
(C) Direct the respondent authorities to appoint the
petitioner to the post of Anganwadi Worker pursuant to the
advertisement at Annexure-B to this petition, and
(D) Pending admission and final disposal of this petition,
the Honourable Court may be pleased to direct the
respondent authorities to revise the final merit list at
Annexure-G to this petition by provisionally considering the
case of the petitioner for appointment to the said post by
granting appropriate weightage to the educational
qualifications of the petitioner, and
(E) Award the cost of this petition, and
(F) Grant any other relief or pass any other order which
the Honourable Court may consider as just and proper in
the facts and circumstances of the case.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/15258/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025
undefined
(G) Quash and set aside the appointment order dated
9.11.2020, Annexure-K to this petition, whereby respondent
No. 4 came to K be appointed to the post of Aanganwadi
Worker, and
(H) Pending admission and final disposal of this petition,
the Honourable Court may be pleased to stay the operation
and implementation and further execution of the impugned
order dated 9.11.2020, and"
3. Brief facts as stated in the memo of the petition are as
under:
3.1 It is the case of the petitioner in this petition that on
11.8.2020, the respondent No.2 - District Development Officer,
Aravalli issued an advertisement inviting online applications
for appointment to the post of Anganwadi Workers. By the
said advertisement in all, 73 posts were sought to be filled
in. It is further the case of the petitioner in this petition
that the petitioner is having educational qualifications of (i)
Diploma in Engineering (ii) Bachelor's Degree in Home
Science B.Sc. (Home Science) (iii) Masters Degree in Home
Science-M.Sc. (Home Science) (iv) CCC course (iv) 30 days
internship in MNB Public Balwadi (v) Certificate of Methods
and Materials for working with Children (vi) certificate of
Dietetics and Nutrition, etc. It is further the case of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/15258/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025
undefined
petitioner in this petition that on 27.8.2020, as the petitioner
was fulfilling necessary eligibility criteria prescribed in the
advertisement, she had submitted her online application form
for appointment to the post of Anganwadi Worker at Bhujar-
1 Anganwadi, which is at a distance of just 20 Meters from
the residence of the petitioner. Petitioner belongs to SEBC
category, so she applied in the said category.
3.2 It is further the case of the petitioner in this petition
that in September 2020, the respondent authority published
the merit list as well as list of ineligible candidates on its
website. Name of the petitioner was included in the list of
ineligible candidates. The reason for the same was stated to
be that the petitioner has not uploaded the Mark-sheet of
Semester I and II. It was further stated that, the documents
regarding passing of Diploma/ Degree course after standard-12
are false. It is further the case of the petitioner in this
petition that as the rejection of the candidature of the
petitioner was absolutely incorrect and was contrary to the
material on record, the petitioner immediately preferred an
Appeal before the District Development Officer, Aravalli on
15.9.2020. Having found substance in the appeal of the
petitioner, the respondent authority included the name of the
petitioner in the revised merit list with merit of 45.32 marks
at Merit Rank No.3.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/15258/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025
undefined
3.3 It is further the case of the petitioner in this petition
that the said merit calculation is also absolutely illegal,
arbitrary and discriminatory as the petitioner possesses the
highest educational qualification from amongst all the other
candidates who have applied for appointment on the post in
question. However, the petitioner is not granted the marks as
per her entitlement, which should be 65.85.
3.4 It is further the case of the petitioner in this petition
that in November, 2020, to the utter shock and surprise of
the petitioner, the respondent authorities once again
published/ uploaded the first merit list on its website,
whereby the name of the petitioner is not included in the
merit list. Candidate with merit of 38.86 is placed at Sr. No:
1 in the merit list. This is even without affording any
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is further the case
of the petitioner in this petition that even if the wrong merit
marks of the petitioner i.e. 45.32 (which actually ought to
have been 65.85 marks) as per the respondent authority is
taken into consideration, the petitioner would have been
standing at Merit Rank No: 1 in the said Merit list. Being
aggrieved by the action of the respondent authority of
rejecting the candidature of the petitioner for appointment to
the post of Anganwadi Worker, the present petition has been
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/15258/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025
undefined
preferred.
4. Heard Mr. Vaibhav Vyas, learned advocate for the
petitioner, Mr. R.D. Kinariwala, learned advocate for the
respondent No.2 and Mr. Parth Patel, learned Assistant
Government Pleader for the respondent - State.
5.1 Mr. Vaibhav Vyas, learned advocate for the petitioner
has relied upon the grounds made in the memo of the
petition in paragraph 4 and has submitted that the impugned
action on the part of the respondent authority is absolutely
illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory, which is evident from
the fact that pursuant to the representation of the petitioner,
her name came to be included in the merit list and the
respondent authority ought to have appreciated that the
petitioner had not only completed her Graduation but has
also completed her Post-Graduation in Home Science.
Therefore, when the petitioner has already completed her
graduation and had also appeared in the last semester of
Post-Graduation (M.Sc.) in the month of March, 2020, there
was no reason for the petitioner not to upload the mark-
sheet of the semester-I and II out of the total 6 semesters.
However, it appears that as the petitioner was granted
exemption in various subjects in semester-I and semester-II,
the respondent authority was misdirected in not considering
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/15258/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025
undefined
the same. This mistake was subsequently rectified by the
respondent authority itself by considering the petitioner as an
eligible and meritorious candidate. He has further submitted
that the petitioner is having the highest educational
qualification and merit in the list of eligible applicants for
appointment to the post of Anganwadi Worker at Bhujar-1
Anganwadi. However, for the reasons best known, firstly the
petitioner was considered to be ineligible and upon
representation of the petitioner, she was treated as eligible
but was granted very less marks then her entitlement. Thus,
it appears that the action of the respondent authority lacks
bonafide, in as much as though much more qualified and
meritorious candidate is available for appointment, less
meritorious candidates are selected for appointment and the
petitioner is treated to be ineligible and, therefore, when the
action of the respondent authorities in the matter of public
employment is not bonafide, the indulgence of this is prayed
for. He has submitted that though the petitioner was
considered eligible and meritorious upon the appeal being
presented by her, the action of the respondent authorities of
excluding the candidature of the petitioner by once again
treating her as ineligible is absolutely high handed action on
the part of the respondent authorities. He has further
submitted that it is a matter of record that at the time of
submitting online application form in the month of August,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/15258/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025
undefined
2020, the petitioner had already appeared in the final
semester examination of M.Sc. in Home Science. However, the
result was awaited as there was delay in publication of the
same due to the pandemic of Covid-2019. However, when the
petitioner had already appeared in the final year B.Sc.
examination much before submitting the online application
form and when the result is already declared by the
University before the final merit list is published by the
respondent authority, the same is required to be taken into
consideration for the purpose of merit calculation.
5.2 He has further submitted that the respondent authority
has without application of mind once again published the
earlier result as the final result. Therefore, the action of the
respondent authority cannot be sustained in the eyes of
law.He has further submitted that it is pertinent to note that
as per the latest merit list, the first candidate has secured
38.86 merit marks, whereas even if the wrong merit marks
of the petitioner i.e. 45.32 (which actually ought to have been
65.85 marks) is taken into consideration, the petitioner would
have been standing at Merit Rank No: 1. He has further
submitted that the action of the respondent authority of
appointing respondent No. 4, a less meritorious candidate, to
the post in question is absolutely illegal arbitrary and
discriminatory. In view of the above, he has prayed to allow
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/15258/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025
undefined
this petition.
6.1 Per contra, Mr. R.D. Kinariwala, learned advocate for
the respondent No.2 has strongly opposed the submissions
made at the bar by learned advocate for the petitioner and
has drawn the attention of this Court towards the affidavit-
in-reply filed by respondent-DDO and has submitted that the
Government of India has introduced a Welfare Scheme for
the Women and Young Children known as Integrated Child
Development Scheme and the same is implemented
throughout the country through State Governments. He has
also submitted that the District Panchayats are administering
the Integrated Child Development Scheme for the respective
districts. He has also submitted that Anganwadi Centres are
established throughout the State of Gujarat for
implementation of the Scheme and the Anganwadi Workers
and Helpers are selected on honorary basis and paid
honorarium as per the Government Policy. He has further
submitted that one of the advertised posts was of Anganwadi
Worker for Anganwadi Centre at Bhujar, Taluka Meghraj,
District Arvalli and the petitioner was among in all 12
applicants for the post of honorary Anganwadi Worker at
Bhujar in response to that advertisement, but on scrutiny in
all, nine applications were rejected by the Child Development
Project Officer, Meghraj Unit-1 as a Competent Authority and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/15258/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025
undefined
the application of the petitioner was also rejected as it was
incomplete and misleading owing to discrepancies. He has
also submitted that the petitioner in her online application
referred to Post Graduation course and marks secured in 1st
and 2nd Semester, but didn't provide details about 3rd and
4th Semesters as well as the mark-sheets thereof were not
uploaded. It is submitted that the applicants were expected
to provide details of the course completed by them. It is also
submitted that the application of the petitioner was referring
to Post Graduate Course, which was not completed and there
was no details about the marks obtained in 3
rd
and 4
th
Semesters. He has further relied on Clause 7.6 of the
Government Resolution dated 25.11.2019 issued by the
Respondent No.1 and has submitted that the respondent No.3
was instructed by her to generate merit list of the eligible
candidates as she is a Competent Authority for appointments
and accordingly a merit list dated 11
th
September, 2020 was
published.
6.2 He has further submitted that the petitioner preferred
Appeal before the Appellate Committee headed by District
Development Officer, Arvalli District Panchayat as per the
provisions of Government Resolution dated 25.11.2019,
whereby the appeal of the petitioner was allowed and
therefore, second merit list was generated on 20.10.2020 and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/15258/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025
undefined
the name of the Petitioner appeared in the said list.
However, grievances were raised before the higher authority
i.e. Commissioner of Child Development, Gujarat State,
Gandhinagar by the Applicants whose placement in the merit
list was changed because of acceptance of appeals by the
Appellate Committee. It is submitted that therefore a report
was called from District Development Officer, Arvalli District
Panchayat through a letter dated 22.10.2020 and immediately
the details were made available by the District Development
Officer, Arvalli District Panchayat as well as Programme
Officer, Arvalli District Panchayat on 23.10.2020 and
26.10.2020. It is stated that after taking into consideration
the factual aspect as well as the provisions of Government
Resolution dated 25.11.2019, it was communicated by the
Commissioner, Women and Child Development through an
order dated 26.10.2020 that correction in applications at
subsequent stage is contrary to the provisions of G.R. dated
25.11.2019 and as such it is to strictly adhere to the
resolution and therefore, a fresh merit lists be prepared. He
has also submitted that in view of this, a third merit list
dated 03.11.2020 was published and the name of the
Petitioner was excluded owing to discrepancy in her
application form and a copy of the said list is annexed
herewith and marked as Annexure-G. The Respondent No.2
submits that the name of the Petitioner is not on merit list
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/15258/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025
undefined
dated 03.11.2020 considering discrepancy in her online
application and the order dated 26.10.2020 passed by the
Commissioner, Women and Child Development, Gujarat State,
Gandhinagar. He has also submited that the provisions of
Government Resolution dated 25.11.2019 are required to be
strictly followed in case of discrepancies in such online
applications are not to be accepted. Hence, rejection of the
application of the Petitioner is just and legal and in
consonance with the provisions of G.R. dated 25.11.2019. It is
submitted that the meritorious candidate Sitaben J. Parmar
is issued an appointment order and she has reported for
duty.
6.3 Lastly, he has relied upon the order dated 17.07.2025
passed by this Court rendered in Special Civil Application
No. 13684 of 2020 and allied matter and has submitted that
identical facts are there in the present petition comparing to
the aforesaid petition.
6.4 In view of overall above, he has prayed to dismiss this
petition.
7. Mr. Parth Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader
for the respondent - State has supported the contentions
raised by Mr. R.D. Kinariwala, learned advocate for the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/15258/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025
undefined
respondent No.2 and has submitted that appropriate order
may be passed considering the facts and circumstances of the
case.
8. In rejoinder, Mr. Vaibhav Vyas, learned advocate for the
petitioner has submitted that the facts of aforesaid petition
i.e. Special Civil Application No. 13684 of 2020 are different
from the facts of the present case and, therefore, the
aforesaid order dated 17.07.2025 passed by this Court in
Special Civil Application No. 13684 of 2020 may not squarely
applicable to the present case.
9.1 I have considered the rival submissions made at the
bar. It transpires that the facts of the present case are
almost identical with the facts of Special Civil Application
No. 13684 of 2020, which is relied on by learned advocate for
the respondent-DDO and decided by this Court.
9.2 Considering the above-mentioned discussion of the merits
of the matter, I found that the order dated 17.07.2025 passed
by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 13684 of 2020,
which is relied by learned advocate for the respondent-DDO,
is applicable to the facts of the present case and the present
petition is required to be decided considering the aforesaid
order. The said order dated 17.07.2025 reads as under:
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/15258/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025
undefined
"1. Both the petitions are filed by the petitioners
for appointment to the post of Anganwadi workers /
Tedagars on the basis of being local area candidate.
2. Heard learned advocates.
3. It is reported that the issue involved in these
petitions have already been decided by the Coordinate
Bench of this Court vide order dated 22.09.2023 recorded
on Special Civil Application No.15212 of 2020. Therefore,
the prayers made in these petitions need not be adjudicated
any further. The order dated 22.09.2023 is as under.
"1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Sudhanshu Jha on
behalf of the petitioners, learned Assistant
Government Pleader Mr. Hardik Soni on behalf of
the respondent- State and learned Advocate Mr.
Manish Patel on behalf of respondent no.2.
2. By way of present petition, the petitioner has
prayed for following relief/s:
"10A. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a
writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or
direction in form of writ of mandamus
quashing and setting aside the order dated
05.11.2020 passed by the respondent no. 3.
B. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to hold and
declare that the petitioners are eligible for
appointment as Aganwadi worker/tedeghars at
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/15258/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025
undefined
their respective places.
C. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to stay the
order passed by the respondent no. 3 pending
hearing and final disposal of the petition.
D. Pending hearing and final disposal of the
petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to
direct the respondents not to appoint any other
candidate in the place of the petitioners."
3. The case of the petitioners in the present petition
being that the petitioners had applied for the post of
Aganwadi worker /Tedaghar in the Arvalli District
more particularly pursuant to an advertisement
issued by the respondents on 11.08.2020. It would
appear that originally the applications of the present
petitioners had been rejected and whereas the
petitioners had questioned the said rejection before
the Appellate Committee and whereas the appeals
preferred by the petitioners had been allowed and the
Appellate Committee had directed the present
petitioners to be considered for appointment and
whereas subsequent thereto, the present petitioners
were appointed.
4. It would appear that thereafter, the orders passed
by the Appellate Committee, were questioned before
the Commissioner and whereas the Commissioner
vide order dated 26.10.2020 had come to a conclusion
that the exercise done by the Appellate Committee
was not in accordance with resolution dated
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/15258/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025
undefined
25.11.2019 which governs the field and whereas
considering the same the orders of Appellate
Committee were directed to be set aside consequently
resulting into appointment to the petitioners also
being cancelled.
5. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Sudhanshu Jha on
behalf of the petitioners who would submit that the
application forms of the petitioners had not been
considered by the respondents on technical grounds
and whereas the Appellate Committee had been
appraised of the same and whereas the Appellate
Committee having regard to the fact that the
petitioners were otherwise eligible, and that the
mistake committed by the petitioners in uploading
the required documents were directed not to come in
the way of the petitioners in being considered for
selection.
6. Learned Advocate would submit that once the
petitioners were selected and appointed on the post
in question, it was incumbent upon the respondents
more particularly the Commissioner to have afforded
an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners before
disturbing the orders of the Appellate Committee,
which in turn had disturbed the appointments given
to the present petitioners. Learned Advocate would
submit that since the petitioners were removed from
service without affording any opportunity, the
impugned order passed by the Commissioner may be
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/15258/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025
undefined
set aside by this Court and this Court may direct
the Commissioner to reconsider the entire issue.
7. As against the same, the present petition is
vehemently objected to by learned AGP Mr. Hardik
Soni, who would draw the attention of this Court to
order dated 26.10.2020 passed by the Commissioner,
Women and Child Welfare Department, Gandhinagar,
State of Gujarat and would submit that the
Commissioner had considered the aspect that there
were errors committed by the petitioners at the time
of filling up and uploading the application form and
whereas such lacunas were permitted to be filled up
at the time of appeal which would not be within the
jurisdiction of the Appellate Committee. Learned AGP
would in any case draw the attention of this Court
to the orders passed by the Appellate Committee and
would submit that the Appellate Committee, while
considering the appeals of the present petitioners,
had not given any reasons whatsoever for accepting
the contentions of the appellants in the appeal i.e.
petitioners before this Court before directing that the
respondents should consider the case.
8. Learned AGP would submit that as far as the
petitioner no. 1 is concerned, even otherwise, the
petitioner since she does not fulfill the requisite
experience criteria was not entitled to apply for the
post in question and whereas as far as petitioners
no. 2 and 3 are concerned, since the petitioners did
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/15258/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025
undefined
not upload the mandatory documents which were
required to be filed, the respondents had rightly
rejected their applications and whereas the Appellate
Committee had fell in error while directing to
reconsider the applications. Thus submitting learned
AGP would request this Court not to interfere with
the order of the Commissioner.
9. Learned AGP Mr. Manish Patel for respondent no.
2 and 3 would support the submissions made by
learned AGP. Learned Advocate Mr. Manish Patel
would further submit that as such, subsequent to the
appointments given to the petitioners being cancelled
somewhere in the month of November 2020 post the
order of the Commissioner dated 26.10.2020, the
posts in question have been filled in and other
candidates are now working on the said post.
Learned Advocate would therefore, requests this Court
not to disturb the appointments given to candidates
who are otherwise not even joined in the present
petition as party respondents. Thus submitting
learned Advocate Mr. Patel would also request this
Court not to interfere with the order passed by the
Commissioner.
10. In rejoinder, learned Advocate Mr. Jha would
submit that as such, there is no dispute with regard
to the petitioner no.1 fulfilling the experience criteria
and in any case the non fulfillment of the experience
criteria is not the reason for the respondents to have
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/15258/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025
undefined
rejected the candidature of the petitioner no.1. Insofar
as petitioners no. 2 and 3 are concerned, learned
Advocate Mr. Jha would reiterate that the petitioners
had committed minor mistakes while uploading the
application forms and the annexures which were
required to be uploaded along with the same and
whereas for such reason, the respondents ought not
to have rejected the applications the applications
preferred by the present petitioners.
11. Heard learned Advocates for the parties who
have not submitted anything else.
12. Considering the submissions made by learned
Advocates and having regard to the documents
appended on record, it would appear that while the
applications of the present petitioners for appointment
to the post of Aganwadi Worker/Tedaghar had been
rejected more particularly on the ground that either
the appreciations were incomplete or the documents
which were required to be appended along with the
same, had improperly been appended or not appended
at all.
13. As against the same, it would also appear that
the petitioners had preferred appeal before the
Appellate Committee as contemplated in Government
Resolution dated 25.11.2019 and upon perusal of the
proceedings in the appeal, it would appear that the
Appellate Committee had not given any reason
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/15258/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025
undefined
whatsoever for accepting the contentions of the
petitioners except for one single sentence in case of
appeal of the petitioner no. 2 herein i.e. the
Appellate Committee having stated in "the reply of
the candidate as above is satisfactory". In the
considered opinion of this Court, while the Appellate
Committee would be empowered to hear and decide
the grievances of the candidates, even insofar as non
acceptance and non-consideration of the application or
rejection of the applications of the candidates yet, it
was incumbent upon the Appellate Committee to have
given some reasons for accepting the appeal. While it
is true that the Appellate Committee is only an
administrative body for administrative convenience yet
the fact remains that the Appellate Committee was
empowered to take a decision as regards any
grievance with regard to the selection process by the
authorities concerned and whereas the Appellate
Committee was also empowered to overturn the
decision of the Selection Committee. Under such
circumstances more particularly since setting aside of
the decision of the Selection Committee would have
its own implications, at least bare minimum reasons
were required to be stated by the Appellate
Committee for directing consideration of the
applications of the present petitioners. To that extent,
this Court tends to agree with the submission of
learned AGP. Furthermore, this Court has also
considered the order passed by learned Commissioner
dated 26.10.2020 and whereas it would appear that
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/15258/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025
undefined
the Commissioner had inter alia opined that the
Appellate Committee had directed acceptance of the
application of the present petitioners inspite of the
same being incomplete and the requirements
mentioned in the advertisement itself not being
fulfilled. In the considered opinion of this Court,
while it had been attempted to be submitted by the
learned Advocate for the petitioners that documents
could not be appended on account of connectivity
issues more particularly since the District in question
was not a developed district, yet, in this regard also,
this Court is inclined to accept the submission of
learned AGP that the candidates were given adequate
time i.e. approximately 20 days between 11.08.2020 to
31.08.2020 for uploading their documents and whereas
even if there were some problems in uploading at
some particular time or at some particular place, it
was always open for the candidates to have corrected
the same at a later point of time albeit within the
period specified hereinabove.
14. Furthermore, as it appears, the selection process
was of the year 2020 and whereas upon the order
passed by the Commissioner dated 26.10.2020, the
appointment of the present petitioners were cancelled
and whereas it would appear that as of now other
candidates have been appointed and are working on
the said posts in question. Under such circumstances
more particularly for the reasons herein above, in the
considered opinion of this Court, the present petition
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/15258/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025
undefined
is not required to be considered since any
consideration or any orders passed in this petition,
may tend to have any the effect of disturbing
candidates who have been appointed and who are
serving on the said post since almost last three
years, more particularly such appointed candidates
not being joined as party respondents in the present
petition.
15. Furthermore while it would appear that the
Commissioner was required to give an opportunity to
the petitioners before disturbing the orders of the
Appellate Committee since the petitioners had already
been appointed by then yet considering the above
observations, this Court deems it appropriate not to
interfere leaving the issue of grant of opportunity by
the Commissioner open. Having regard to the above
discussion and observations in the considered opinion
of this Court no reason for interference having been
made out. The present petition is disposed of as
rejected."
4. In view of above, these petitions need not be
adjudicated any further. Accordingly, these petitions are
dismissed in view of the above order. Notice/Rule, if any, is
discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated."
9.3 In view of the above discussion, the present petition
needs not to be adjudicated any further, as identical issue is
decided by this Court in the aforesaid petition, which is
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/15258/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025
undefined
applicable to the facts of the present case. Therefore, in my
opinion, the present petition is found meritless and
accordingly, the present petition is required to be dismissed
and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
Rule stands discharged.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J)
DIWAKAR SHUKLA
