Saleem Lukman Saiyed vs Municipal Corporation Of The City Of ... on 28 April, 2026

                                                                                                                    NEUTRAL CITATION




                             C/SCA/17818/2022                                       JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026

                                                                                                                     undefined




                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17818 of 2022


                       FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


                       HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT                                        Sd/-

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

                                    Approved for Reporting                      Yes             No
                                                                                                ✓
                       =============================================
                                         SALEEM LUKMAN SAIYED & ORS.
                                                    Versus
                                  MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF SURAT
                       =============================================
                       Appearance:
                       MR KK TRIVEDI(934) for the Petitioner(s) No.
                       1,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,2,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,3
                       ,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,4,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,5,
                       6,7,8,9
                       MR KAUSHAL D PANDYA(2905) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
                       =============================================

                        CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT

                                                          Date : 28/04/2026

                                                                JUDGMENT

[1] Heard Mr. K.K.Trivedi, learned advocate for the petitioners as also Mr. Kaushal D. Pandya, learned advocate for respondent No.1.

[2] The present writ petition is filed under Articles 14, 16 and 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:-

{A} YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to admit this petition;

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/17818/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026

undefined

{B} YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a a writ in nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction thereby directing the respondent to operate the waiting list published by it on 13.12.2016 (Annexure-B) for the post of Class-III Clerks (Code 701) and to fill up the vacancies existed before 13.12.2018 and between 14.12.2018 to September, 2021 when the restrictions of Covid-19 pandemic were withdrawn in the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances of the case as well as in the interest of justice;

IN THE ALTERNATE AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE RELIEF

{C} YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue pass a writ in nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction thereby directing the respondent to consider granting relaxation in age limits to the petitioners whose names are appearing on the waiting list (Annexure-B) dated in the upcoming Advertisement/s inviting applications for filling up the post of Class-III Clerks in the SMC in the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances of the case as well as in the interest of justice;

{D} PENDING admission, hearing, and final disposal of this petition, YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to grant ex-parte ad-interim / interim relief directing the respondent to operate the waiting list published (Annexure-B) for the post of Class-III Clerks (Code 701) and to fill up the vacancies existed before 13.12.2018, and between 14.12.2018 to September 2021, when the restrictions of Covid-19 pandemic were withdrawn in the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances of the case as well as in the interest of justice;

{E} PENDING admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased grant ex-parte order / interim / ad- interim / ex-parte interim relief and further be pleased to direct the SMC

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/17818/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026

undefined

to consider granting relaxation in age limits to the petitioners and other similarly situated waitlisted candidates of the aforesaid Waiting list published by the SMC on 13.12.2016 for the post of Class-III Clerks (Code 701) in the upcoming Advertisement/s inviting applications for filling up the post of Class-III Clerks in the SMC in the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances of the case as well as in the interest of justice

{F} YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to pass any such other and/or further order/s, thought just and proper, in the interest of justice."

[3] At the outset, it is required to be observed that by way of this petition, the petitioner is seeking writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ seeking direction against the respondent to operate the waiting-list published on 13.12.2016 for the post of Class-III. The present writ petition is filed on 07.09.2022, i.e., much after expiry waiting-list.

[4] It is settled position of law that upon completion of one year of publication of select-list/ waiting-list, it will be expired and cannot be operated further.

[5] At this stage, it would be apposite to refer to rely upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Orissa and another vs. Rajkishore Nanda and others reported in 2010 (6) SCC 777, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court after taking note of its earlier decisions held thus:

"15. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, 1991 AIR(SC) 1612, held that appearance of the name of a candidate in the select list does not give him a right of appointment. Mere inclusion of candidate's name in the select list does not confer any

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/17818/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026

undefined

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 and Anr. v. State of J & K and Ors., 1993 2 SCC 573; Union of India v. S.S. Uppal, 1996 AIR(SC) 2340; Bihar Public Service Commission v. State of Bihar, 1997 AIR(SC) 2280; Simanchal Panda v. State of Orissa and Ors., 2002 2 SCC 669; Punjab State Electricity Board and Ors. v. Malkiat Singh, 2005 9 SCC 22; Union of India and Ors. v. Kali Dass Batish and Anr., 2006 AIR(SC) 789; Divisional Forests Officers and Ors. v. M. Ramalinga Reddy, 2007 AIR(SC) 2226; Subha B. Nair and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2008 7 SCC 210; Mukul Saikia and Ors. v. State of Assam and Ors., 2009 1 SCC 386; and S.S. Balu and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2009 2 SCC 479.

16. 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 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 Andhra Pradesh and Ors., 1996 3 SCC 320; State of Bihar and Ors. v. Md. Kalimuddin and Ors., 1996 AIR(SC) 1145; State of U.P. and Ors. v. Harish Chandra and Ors., 1996 AIR(SC) 2173; Sushma Suri v. Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi and Anr., 1999 1 SCC 330; State of U.P. and Ors. v. Ram Swarup Saroj, 2000 3 SCC 699; K. Thulaseedharan v. Kerala State Public Service Commission, Trivendrum and Ors., 2007 6 SCC 190; Deepa Keyes v. Kerala State Electricity Board and Anr.,2007 6 SCC 194; and Subha B. Nair and Ors. (supra)."

(emphasis supplied)

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/17818/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026

undefined

[5.1] It is also well settled that the select list would ordinarily remain valid for one year unless recruitment rules speak otherwise. It would be apt to refer to rely upon the decision of Girdhar Kumar Dadhich vs State of Rajasthan, reported in (2009) 2 SCC 706, wherein observed 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 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."

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/17818/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026

undefined

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 [(1991) 3 SCC 47 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 800 : (1991) 17 ATC 95] and Asha Kaul v. State of J&K [(1993) 2 SCC 573 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 637 : (1993) 24 ATC 576] .)"

(emphasis supplied) [6] In view of the aforesaid position of law stands as on date, I am of the considered opinion that, so far as prayer [B] made in para-12 of the petition cannot be granted as the challenge / request of the petitioner is much after the expiry of the waiting-list.

[7] Mr. Trivedi, learned advocate for the petitioners would humbly request this Court that due to non-operation of wait- list for quite long time by the respondent, in absence of any further advertisement, the petitioners, who are aspirant to be selected, become overage by now and in that view of the matter, appropriate direction be issued to the respondent to give an age relaxation to the petitioners in future as they were on waiting-list.

[7.1] Such request and the alternate prayer made by the petitioners in Clause [C] of para-12 of the petition cannot be

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/17818/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026

undefined

entertained by this Court for a simple reason that whether to grant any age relaxation to the classes of person is within exclusive domain of the respondent - Corporation and it being a policy matter, this Court hardly should exercise its powers to direct the respondent to frame any policy qua the age relaxation.

[8] Yet, it is always open for the petitioners to make suitable representation to the respondent to grant them age relaxation in future advertisement. As and when such request will be received from the petitioners, the respondent shall consider and take appropriate decision in this regard. Needless to say that in a case where the respondent will not accept the request of the petitioners regarding age relaxation, in that circumstances, it will not give any fresh cause of action to the petitioner to challenge such decision of respondent before this Court.

[9] In view of the aforesaid and for the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merits in the petition, which requires to be dismissed and accordingly, it is hereby dismissed. Notice stands discharged. There shall be no order as to costs.