[Cites 18, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Snehaben Laxmanbhai Chauhan vs State Of Gujarat on 21 April, 2026

                                                                                                               NEUTRAL CITATION




                          C/SCA/11924/2018                                    JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2026

                                                                                                               undefined




                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                    R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11924 of 2018


                     FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


                     HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J. SHELAT

                     ==========================================================

                                  Approved for Reporting                     Yes           No
                                                                             ✓
                     ==========================================================
                                             SNEHABEN LAXMANBHAI CHAUHAN
                                                         Versus
                                                STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
                     ==========================================================
                     Appearance:
                     MS ARCHANA R ACHARYA(2475) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
                     MR SIDDHARTH RAMI, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
                     Respondent(s) No. 1,2
                     NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 3
                     ==========================================================

                        CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J. SHELAT

                                                         Date : 21/04/2026

                                                          JUDGMENT

1. Heard Ms. Archana R. Acharya, learned Advocate for the

petitioner and Mr. Siddharth Rami, learned Assistant

Government Pleader for the respondents.

2. RULE returnable forthwith. Mr. Siddharth Rami, learned

Assistant Government Pleader, waives service of notice of Rule

on behalf of the respondents.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/11924/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2026

undefined

3. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for

hearing.

4. The present writ petition is filed under Articles 14, 16 and 226

of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:

"(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to forthwith appoint the petitioner on the post of physiotherapist/Tutor-cum-Physiotherapist, in pursuance to the advertisement bearing no. 62/201516 to 64/201516 and in compliance with the guidelines issued by this Hon'ble Court in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 304 of 2013, in the interest of justice;

(AA) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased To issue appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to forthwith appoint the petitioner on the post of physiotherapist/Tutor-cum-Physiotherapist, in pursuance to the advertisement bearing no. 158/2018189 and in compliance with the guidelines issued by this Hon'ble Court in Writ Petition (PIL) No 304 of 2013, in the interest of justice;

In the alternative

(AB) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to give first preference to the petitioner while considering the case of others for appointment on the post of physiotherapist/ Tutor-cum-Physiotherapist, in pursuance to the advertisement bearing no. 158/2018189, in the interest of justice;

(AAA) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction, exclude the name of petitioner from the impugned list (Annexure-K1) and declare that the petitioner is eligible for

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/11924/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2026

undefined

appointment to the post of Physiotherapist/ Tutor-cum- Physiotherapist and further be pleased to direct the respondents to give appointment to the petitioner to the post of Physiotherapist/Tutor-cum-Physiotherapist, in the interest of justice;

(B) Pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to direct the respondents to give temporary appointment to the petitioner on the post of physiotherapist/Tutor-cum-Physiotherapist, in the interest of justice;

(BB) Pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to direct the respondents to give first preference to the petitioner while considering the case of others for appointment on the post of physiotherapist/Physiotherapist, in pursuance Tutor-cum-to the advertisement bearing no. 158/2018189 and produce the report in this regard before this Hon'ble Court, in the interest of justice;

(BBB) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to direct the respondents to exclude the name of petitioner from the impugned list (Annexure-K1) and consider the case of petitioner for appointment to the post of Physiotherapist/ Tutor-cum-Physiotherapist and also keep one post of Physiotherapist/ Tutor-cum-Physiotherapist vacant, pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition;

5. SHORT FACTS:

5.1. It is the case of the petitioner that, pursuant to the

advertisement dated 03.02.2016, she applied for the post of

physiotherapist. As per the advertisement, certain eligibility

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/11924/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2026

undefined

criteria for the said post were fixed by the respondent. As per

the eligibility criteria, the candidate must be more than 18 years

old, but not more than 35 years of age, as on 18.02.2016. The

candidate must possess a valid degree in physiotherapy from

any university recognized by law or any educational institution

recognized by the government as on 18.02.2016. It is also

observed that the candidate must be registered with the Indian

Association of Physiotherapists as on 18.02.2016 and if not

registered at the time of the online application, the candidate

must register with the Gujarat State Council for

Physiotherapists. The rest of the requirements as regards

knowledge of computer and knowing the languages of Gujarati

and Hindi are not of much relevance to decide the issue

germane to the matter.

5.2. The respondent No. 3 appears to have amended the said

requirement by way of issuing an amended public notice dated

17.02.2016, whereby, the requirement of registration with the

Gujarat State Council for Physiotherapists was relaxed. It has

been stated that once the candidate will be selected, at that

time, the candidate shall have to register immediately with the

council.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/11924/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2026

undefined

5.3. The petitioner participated in the examinations conducted by

respondent No. 3 and cleared the first and second rounds of the

selection process, but at the time of document verification, it

came to the notice of the respondent that the certificate which

was produced by the petitioner in regard to her degree, the

same was a provisional one. Thus, vide communication dated

03.08.2016, the petitioner was called upon by respondent No. 3

to produce necessary details and documents, including the

certificate of completion of her 6 months' internship issued by

the competent authority in pursuance of the degree. The record

suggests that the petitioner completed her internship on

31.03.2016, which was confirmed by the Principal, Government

College of Physiotherapy, Jamnagar, vide its certificate dated

02.04.2016. Since the petitioner did not possess a degree

certificate in physiotherapy as on 18.02.2016, she did not fulfill

the eligibility criteria set out in the original advertisement, and

her candidature was not considered. Accordingly, the

petitioner's name did not figure in the select list published by

respondent No. 3 on 11.08.2016. It appears that along with the

select list, there was a wait list also published by respondent

No. 3.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/11924/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2026

undefined

5.4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the action of the

respondent in not selecting the petitioner, she has approached

this Court by way of this petition, which was filed on

01.08.2018.

6. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONER:

6.1. Ms. Acharya, learned Advocate, would submit that the

respondent committed a gross illegality in not considering the

candidature of the petitioner, who is otherwise more

meritorious than the other candidates who were given

appointments by the respondent. It is submitted that the

petitioner already cleared the physiotherapy examination and

possessing a degree of physiotherapy as on the date of filing the

application and thereby, fulfilled all other criteria. It is further

submitted that there was no requirement envisaged in the

advertisement so far as production of certificate in relation to

the six months' internship is concerned and as such, the new

requirement sought from the petitioner and on erroneous

premise, the respondents denied the appointment to the

petitioner.

6.2. Ms. Acharya, learned Advocate, would further submit that the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/11924/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2026

undefined

respondent could not have gone beyond the eligibility criteria

set out in the advertisement and in the absence of any specific

requirement for the completion of 6 months' internship by the

candidate on or before 18.02.2016, on such a premise, the

respondent could not have rejected the candidature of the

petitioner. It is submitted that the impugned action of the

respondent is ex-facie violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the

Constitution of India and by not giving the appointment to the

more meritorious person like the petitioner, it has resulted into

miscarriage of justice.

6.3. Making the above submissions, Ms. Acharya, learned

Advocate, would request this Court to allow the present writ

petition.

7. SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS:

7.1. Per contra, Mr. Rami, learned AGP, would vehemently oppose

this petition, contending inter alia that there is no merit in the

petitioner's contention in so far as her claim of possessing the

degree certificate in physiotherapy as on 18.02.2016 is

concerned.

7.2. Mr. Rami, learned AGP, would rely upon the reply and

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/11924/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2026

undefined

documents submitted along with it. It is submitted that as on

18.02.2016, the petitioner did not possess a valid degree in

physiotherapy issued by the university concerned, as her

internship of 6 months was completed on 31.03.2016 and till

such time, the petitioner could not have obtained the degree

certificate. It is further submitted that as per the revised

regulation, ordinance and syllabus for the Bachelor of

Physiotherapy issued by Saurashtra University, from where the

petitioner obtained the degree in physiotherapy, albeit after

18.02.2016, would clearly suggest that upon successfully

completing the 6 months' internship training, the petitioner

would get degree certificate. It is further submitted that since

the petitioner did not fulfill the eligibility criteria as set out in

the advertisement, her candidature was not considered by

respondent No. 3 and her name was correctly not reflected in

the select list. It is further submitted that there is neither any

arbitrariness nor any favoritism on the part of the respondent

and as such, the impugned action of the respondent in not

selecting the petitioner was in accordance with law.

7.3. Mr. Rami, learned AGP, would further submit that the

select/wait list was published by respondent No. 3 on

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/11924/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2026

undefined

11.08.2016, whereas the present petition was filed on

01.08.2018, as per the settled legal position, this Court should

not entertain this petition, as the validity of the select/wait list

expired upon the completion of one year from its publication.

7.4. To buttress his arguments, Mr. Rami, learned AGP, would rely

upon the following decisions:

(i). State of Orissa and another V/s. Rajkishore Nanda and

others, reported in (2010) 6 SCC 777;

(ii). Girdhar Kumar Dadhich and another V/s. State of

Rajasthan and others, reported in (2009) 2 SCC 706.

7.5. Making the above submissions, Mr. Rami, learned AGP,

would request this Court to reject the present writ petition.

8. No other and further submissions are being made.

ANALYSIS:

9. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for the

respective parties and after appreciating the submissions so

canvassed by the respective learned Advocates, the following

would emerge:

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/11924/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2026

undefined

9.1. The petitioner applied for the post of physiotherapist pursuant

to the advertisement dated 03.02.2016. As per the eligibility

criteria set out by respondent No. 3 in the aforesaid

advertisement, the petitioner ought to have possessed the

degree certificate issued by a university recognized by law as on

18.02.2016. So far as the registration of the petitioner with the

Gujarat State Council for Physiotherapists is concerned, that

condition was relaxed vide amended advertisement dated

17.02.2016.

9.2. Undisputedly, the petitioner completed her 6 months'

internship training only on 31.03.2016. The said fact can be

confirmed from the certificate dated 02.04.2016 issued by the

Principal, Government Physiotherapy College, Jamnagar.

9.3. The petitioner cleared the first and second rounds of the

process of selection, but at the time of document verification, it

was noticed by respondent No. 3 that at the time of submitting

her online application, she had provided the provisional degree

certificate. Therefore, the petitioner was asked to produce the

details about completion of her internship training and

certificate of completion of her internship training issued by the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/11924/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2026

undefined

competent authority in this regard.

9.4. The petitioner appears to have submitted the aforesaid

certificate, but was unable to submit her degree certificate

issued by the University prior to 19.02.2016 as cutoff date was

18.02.2016. In view of the said fact, the candidature of the

petitioner was not considered by respondent No. 3 for selection

to the post in question, as according to respondent No. 3, the

petitioner was not fulfilling the eligibility criteria as on

18.02.2016.

9.5. At this juncture, it is apposite to note that as per revised

regulations, ordinances and syllabus issued by Saurashtra

University for the Bachelor of Physiotherapy are concerned,

the said regulations require to be referred to. The relevant

portion of such regulations reads thus:

"O.B. PHYSIO-2

TRAINING PERIOD & TIME/PHASE DISTRIBUTION

(1) For the degree of Bachelor of Physiotherapy.

Every student shall undergo a period of certified study extending over 4 academic years divided in to 8 terms (i.e. of six months each) from the date of commencement of the study for the subjects comprising the physiotherapy curriculum to the date of completion of final B. Physio examination

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/11924/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2026

undefined

successfully and followed by six months compulsory rotating internship.

(2) The Period of 4 Years is divided in 4 phases.

O.B. PHYSIO-9

COMPULSORY ROTATING INTERNSHIP

In order to qualify for B. Physiotherapy degree every student after passing Final B. Physiotherapy examination shall do compulsory rotating Internship Training for a period of six months in an institution recognize by SAURASHTRA UNIVERSITY for the purpose."

10. The bare reading of the aforesaid regulations would clearly

indicate that to obtain the degree in physiotherapy, every

student, after passing the final Bachelor of Physiotherapy

examination, shall have to compulsorily complete internship

training for a period of 6 months. Undisputedly, in the present

case, the petitioner had not completed such training as on

18.02.2016; consequently, the possibility of her possessing a

valid degree in physiotherapy is out of question. There is

nothing on record to show that the petitioner was possessing a

valid degree certificate of Bachelor of Physiotherapy as on

18.02.2016. Consequently, in the absence of fulfilling the

eligibility criteria set out in the aforesaid advertisement issued

on 03.02.2016, the petitioner cannot claim the appointment to

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/11924/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2026

undefined

the post of physiotherapist. A fortiori, if respondent No. 3

decided not to consider the candidature of the petitioner by

excluding her from the select list, I cannot find any fault with

the impugned decision; in my considered view, the decision was

made in accordance with the said norms and the eligibility

criteria set out in the advertisement.

11. So far as the contention of Ms. Acharya, learned Advocate for

the petitioner that there was no criteria about completion of 6

months' internship training in the advertisement is concerned,

the same is ill-founded and no legs to stand, inasmuch as unless

the petitioner could have completed 6 months' internship

training as on 18.02.2016, she could not have possessed a valid

degree certificate in physiotherapy issued by the university

concerned. According to my view, the respondents did not seek

any other requirements from the petitioner than set out in the

said advertisement; rather, it was incumbent upon the

petitioner to submit her valid degree certificate issued by the

university concerned prior to 19.02.2016, as cutoff date was

18.02.2016. The petitioner did not submit the degree certificate

issued by the university on or before 18.02.2016.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/11924/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2026

undefined

12. Since the petitioner was not fulfilling the eligibility criteria, in

view of the aforesaid, the petitioner cannot, as a matter of

course, sought any reliefs as prayed in this petition.

13. Apart from no merit in the claim of the petitioner, there is

substance in the arguments of Mr. Rami, learned AGP that this

petition also cannot be entertained on the ground of delay in

filing. It is an undisputed fact that the select/wait list was issued

by respondent No. 3 on 11.08.2016, whereas, the present

petition was filed on 01.08.2018, i.e., after one year of

publication of the select/wait list. It is a settled position of law

that the life of any select/wait list is one year only and it expires

one year after its publication.

14. It would be apposite to note the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex

Court in the decision of Rajkishore Nanda (supra) and Girdhar

Kumar Dadhich (supra).

14.1. In the case of Rajkishore Nanda (supra), after noticing the

previous case law, the Hon'ble Apex Court held thus:

"15. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India [(1991) 3 SCC 47 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 800 : (1991) 17 ATC 95 : AIR 1991 SC 1612] held that appearance of the name of a candidate in the select list does not give him a right

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/11924/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2026

undefined

of appointment. Mere inclusion of the candidate's name in the select list does not confer any right to be selected, even if some of the vacancies remain unfilled. The candidate concerned cannot claim that he has been given a hostile discrimination. (See also Asha Kaul v. State of J&K [(1993) 2 SCC 573 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 637 : (1993) 24 ATC 576] , Union of India v. S.S. Uppal [(1996) 2 SCC 168 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 438 :

(1996) 32 ATC 668 : AIR 1996 SC 2340] , Bihar Public Service Commission v. State of Bihar [(1997) 3 SCC 198 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 775 : AIR 1997 SC 2280] , Simanchal Panda v. State of Orissa [(2002) 2 SCC 669 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 369] , Punjab SEB v.

Malkiat Singh [(2005) 9 SCC 22 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 235] , Union of India v. Kali Dass Batish [(2006) 1 SCC 779 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 225 : AIR 2006 SC 789] , Divisional Forest Officer v. M. Ramalinga Reddy [(2007) 9 SCC 286 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 410 :

AIR 2007 SC 2226] , Subha B. Nair v. State of Kerala [(2008) 7 SCC 210 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 409] , Mukul Saikia v. State of Assam [(2009) 1 SCC 386 : (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 186 : AIR 2009 SC 747] and S.S. Balu v. State of Kerala [(2009) 2 SCC 479 :

(2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 388] .)

16. A select list cannot be treated as a reservoir for the purpose of appointments, that vacancy can be filled up taking the names from that list as and when it is so required. It is the settled legal proposition that no relief can be granted to the candidate if he approaches the court after the expiry of the select list. If the selection process is over, select list has expired and appointments had been made, no relief can be granted by the court at a belated stage. (Vide J.

Ashok Kumar v. State of A.P. [(1996) 3 SCC 320 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 707] , State of Bihar v. Mohd. Kalimuddin [(1996) 2 SCC 7 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 389 : (1996) 32 ATC 821 : AIR 1996 SC

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/11924/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2026

undefined

1145] , State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra [(1996) 9 SCC 309 :

1996 SCC (L&S) 1240 : AIR 1996 SC 2173] , Sushma Suri v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi [(1999) 1 SCC 330 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 208] , State of U.P. v. Ram Swarup Saroj [(2000) 3 SCC 699] , K. Thulaseedharan v. Kerala State Public Service Commission [(2007) 6 SCC 190 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 427] , Deepa Keyes v. Kerala SEB [(2007) 6 SCC 194 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 430] and Subha B. Nair [(2008) 7 SCC 210 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 409] .)"

(emphasis supplied)

14.2. In the case of Girdhar Kumar Dadhich (supra) and others, it was

held thus:

"16. Furthermore, the select list would ordinarily remain valid for one year. We fail to understand on what basis appointments were made in 2003 or subsequently. Whether the validity of the said select list was extended or not is not known. Extension of select list must be done in accordance with law. Apart from a bald statement made in the list of dates that the validity of the said select list had been extended, no document in support thereof has been placed before us.

17. In State of Rajasthan v. Jagdish Chopra [(2007) 8 SCC 161 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 837] this Court held: (SCC pp. 164-65, paras 9 and 11)

"9. Recruitment for teachers in the State of Rajasthan is admittedly governed by the statutory rules. All recruitments, therefore, are required to be made in terms thereof. Although Rule 9(3) of the Rules does not specifically provide for the period for which the merit list shall remain valid but the intent of the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/11924/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2026

undefined

legislature is absolutely clear as vacancies have to be determined only once in a year. Vacancies which arose in the subsequent years could be filled up from the select list prepared in the previous year and not in other manner. Even otherwise, in absence of any rule, ordinary period of validity of select list should be one year. In State of Bihar v. Amrendra Kumar Mishra [(2006) 12 SCC 561 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 132] this Court opined: (SCC p. 564, para 9)

'9. In the aforementioned situation, in our opinion, he did not have any legal right to be appointed. Life of a panel, it is well known, remains valid for a year. Once it lapses, unless an appropriate order is issued by the State, no appointment can be made out of the said panel.'

It was further held: (Amrendra Kumar case [(2006) 12 SCC 561 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 132] , SCC p. 565, para 13)

'13. The decisions noticed hereinbefore are authorities for the proposition that even the wait list must be acted upon having regard to the terms of the advertisement and in any event cannot remain operative beyond the prescribed period.'

***

11. It is well-settled principle of law that even selected candidates do not have legal right in this behalf. (See Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India and Asha Kaul v. State of J&K.)"

(emphasis supplied)

15. In view of the binding pronouncement of the Hon'ble Apex

Court cited supra, the present petition is also requires to be

rejected on the ground of delay as the petitioner approached

this Court after one year from the publication of select/wait list.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/11924/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2026

undefined

16. In view of the foregoing discussions and reasons, only one

conclusion can be reached; that there is no merit in the claim of

the petitioner, and the same is required to be dismissed.

17. Accordingly, the present petition is hereby dismissed. Rule is