[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Keshaben Udabhai Chamar vs State Of Gujarat on 19 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/15756/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/01/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15756 of 2020
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
=============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
=============================================
KESHABEN UDABHAI CHAMAR
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
=============================================
Appearance:
MR RASHESH RINDANI FOR MR MAULIK N SHAH(5280) for the
Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS FORUM SHAH, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR MANISH J PATEL(2131) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,3
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 19/01/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr.Manish Patel, learned
advocate, waives service of Rule for respondent No.2 and
Ms.Forum Shah, learned AGP, and waives service of Rule for
the respondent State. With consent of learned advocates,
matter was taken up for hearing.
2. Heard Mr.Rashesh Rindani, learned advocate for the
petitioner, Mr.Manish Patel, learned advocate for respondent
No.2 and Ms.Forum Shah, learned AGP for the respondent
State.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/15756/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/01/2026
undefined
3. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, seeking the following reliefs :
"A. YOUR LORDSHIP may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus
quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 10/11/2020
passed by District Panchayat Sabarkantha.
B. YOUR LORDSHIP may be pleased to hold and declare that the
action on behalf of District Panchayat of terminating the petitioner
is illegal and unconstitutional.
C. Your lordship may be pleased to implementation and execution
of impugned order dated 10/11/2020 passed by District Panchayat
Sabarkantha."
SHORT FACTS OF THE CASE :
4. The short facts of the case appear to be that the
petitioner was selected to the post of Gram Sevak, Class-III
pursuant to the advertisement dated 24/11/2016 issued by the
District Panchayat Service Selection Committee, Sabarkantha
at the instance of District Panchayat, Sabarkantha -
respondent No. 2. Having been found meritorious on the post
reserved for Scheduled Caste women, the petitioner was
appointed vide an appointment letter dated 23/05/2017 to the
said post. It appears that vide impugned order dated
10/11/2020, her service was terminated by respondent No.2,
citing a reason that on revision of the final select list, more
meritorious candidate than the petitioner was found, whereby
the service of the petitioner requires to be terminated and in
fact, it was terminated.
4.1 It remains an undisputed fact between the parties that
while issuing the impugned termination order dated
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/15756/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/01/2026
undefined
10/11/2020, the principles of natural justice were not
observed, inasmuch as, no show-cause notice came to be
issued by the respondents before passing an impugned order
of termination.
4.2 The reply of the respondents would suggest that due to
some litigation at the instance of unsuccessful candidates
before this Court, wherein some directions were issued to the
respondents to reconsider their case, upon complying with the
directions issued by this Court, the service of the petitioner
came to be terminated. Thus, being aggrieved by the
aforesaid termination order, the petitioner has approached
this Court by way of this petition.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONER :
5. Mr. Rindani, learned advocate for the petitioner would
submit that the impugned decision / termination order issued
by respondent No.2 is ex facie arbitrary, erroneous and in
violation of the principles of natural justice and requires to be
quashed and set aside. It is submitted that when the
petitioner was appointed to the post of Gram Sevak on
23/05/2017, there was no such condition attached to the
appointment order whereby her service can be terminated
due to any outcome of any litigation arose out of the said
advertisement is concerned.
5.1 Mr.Rindani, learned advocate, would further submit
that as per the settled legal position, when there is no fraud or
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/15756/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/01/2026
undefined
any mischief played by the petitioner in seeking appointment,
on revision of the merit list / select list, her service could not
have been terminated by the respondents. It is submitted that
no show-cause notice was issued prior to the issuance of the
impugned termination order on 10/11/2020.
5.2 Mr.Rindani, learned advocate, would further submit that
the impugned action of the respondent suffers from and is in
violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch
as, the principles of natural justice were not observed and
being arbitrary in nature, the same requires to be quashed
and set aside.
5.3 To buttress his arguments, Mr.Rindani, learned
advocate, would rely upon the following judgments :
(1) Bharwani Jitendra and others vs. State of
Guajrat and others, being Letters Patent Appeal
No.1303 of 2015 and allied matters.
(2) Savankumar Mukeshbhai Barot and others vs.
Staet of Gujarat and others, being Special Civil
Application No. 6887 of 2017 and allied matters.
(3) Yatinkumar Babubhai Panchal vs. State of
Gujarat, being Special Civil Application No.
14759 of 2019 and aligned matters.
(4) The Secretary vs. Yatinkumar Babubhai Panchal,
being Letters Patent Appeal No. 838 of 2022 and
allied matters.
5.4 Making the above submissions, Mr.Rindani, learned
advocate for the petitioner requests this Court to allow the
present petition.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/15756/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/01/2026
undefined
SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS :
6. Per contra, Mr. Manish Patel, learned advocate for
respondent No. 2 would submit that there is no fault on the
part of respondent No.2 in terminating the service of the
petitioner as, upon following the directions issued by this
Court passed in Special Civil Application No.6953 of 2017 and
Special Civil Application No. 10115 of 2017, on revision of the
merit list / select list, more meritorious and suitable candidate
than the petitioner was found by respondent No. 2; thereby,
the service of the petitioner came to be terminated.
6.1 Mr. Patel, learned advocate would further submit that
when the petitioner was initially appointed, the appointment
was ad hoc in nature and due to the implementation of the
directions issued by this Court in the aforementioned matters,
if the petitioner's services are terminated, she would not be
entitled to receive any benefit.
6.2 Making the above submissions, Mr.Patel, learned
advocate for respondent No.2 requests this Court to dismiss
the present petition.
7. Ms.Forum Shah, learned AGP appearing for the
respondent State, has adopted the arguments canvassed by
Mr. Manish Patel, learned advocate for respondent No. 2.
7.1 No other and further submissions are being made.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/15756/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/01/2026
undefined
ANALYSIS :
8. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective
parties and after going through their pleadings, the issue
germane in the matter is :
"Whether the termination of service of the petitioner by
respondent No.2 is justified or not ?
9. The facts which are observed hereinabove are not in
dispute. It is not even remotely the case of the respondents
that any fraud, malpractice or mischief has been played by the
petitioner when she got appointed on 23/05/2017. It is even
not disputed by the respondents that before issuing the
impugned termination order dated 10/11/2020, they had not
issued any show-cause notice to the petitioner. This impugned
action of respondent No.2 is apparently in violation of the
principles of natural justice and on that ground alone, it
requires to be quashed and set aside.
10. Apart from the aforesaid, the issue germane in the
matter is squarely covered by the decisions of the Division
Bench of this Court and other judgments cited and pressed
into service by the learned advocate for the petitioner. To
avoid repetition, I would like to refer to and rely upon the
observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in case
of Bharwani Jitendra (supra), wherein it is observed and
held thus :
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/15756/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/01/2026
undefined
"7. From the record it has emerged that the appellants appeared
in the examination for the post in question as per the advertisement
issued by the respondent No.3. Their names appeared in the merit-
list at the first instance and they got appointment on the basis of
the merit-list. The appellants worked on the post in question for a
period of one and half year. In the meantime, representations were
received by the respondent authorities about the wrong key-
answers for some of the questions and therefore the concerned
respondent authorities has taken the help of the experts and found
that certain answer-keys were incorrect. Accordingly, decision was
taken to rectify the said mistake and on the basis of correct answer-
keys, revised merit-list was published and in the said revised merit-
list the appellants could not get the place. Accordingly, their
services were terminated. It has also emerged from record that
before terminating the services of the appellants the respondent
authorities have not issued any notice to the appellants nor any
opportunity of hearing was given to them. Thus, in view of the
aforesaid admitted position it is clear that the respondents have
violated the principles of natural justice.
8. From the affidavit filed by the respondent authorities and
from the submissions canvassed on behalf of the learned AGP, it is
also clear that it is not the case of the respondent authorities that
the appellants have played any fraud or adopted any malpractice. It
is also an admitted position that it was the mistake on the part of
the concerned authority while preparing the answer-keys on the
basis of which the merit-list was prepared in which the names of the
appellants were reflected and they got the appointment. It is also
true that because of the mistake of the concerned authority while
preparing the key-answers, meritorious candidates should not suffer
and therefore there is no fault on the part of the respondent
authorities in correcting the key-answers and on the basis of which
in preparing the revised merit-list. Thus, we are of the opinion that
the respondent authorities have not committed any illegality while
preparing the revised merit-list on the basis of the corrected key-
answers.
9. Thus, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the
case, the issue which this Court has to decide is whether the
appellants are entitled to claim any relief from this Court?
10. As observed hereinabove, learned AGP has placed reliance
upon various decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In
the case of Anand Kumar Pandey & Ors. (supra), there was large-
scale copying at a particular centre and therefore after preparation
of the select list when the complaint was received by the Railway
Authorities, inquiry was conducted and it was found that the
complaint was correct and therefore the Railway Authorities
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/15756/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/01/2026
undefined
decided to deny the appointment to the candidates who were
qualified in the written examination from that particular centre and
fresh written examination was held. Thus, this decision relied upon
by learned AGP is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
11. In the case of Ram Preeti Yadav (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held that once the fraud is proved, it will deprive the
person of all advantages or benefits obtained thereby and in such
cases it is not necessary for the authority to observe the principles
of natural justice. This decision is also not applicable to the facts of
the present case.
11.1. Similarly, in other decisions relied upon by the learned AGP it
was found that the concerned candidates played fraud or adopted
malpractice and therefore the Hon'ble Supreme Court in such
background held that if malpractice or fraud is played by the
candidates it is not necessary for the authority to observe the
principles of natural justice.
12. Admittedly, in the present case, it is not the case of the
respondent authorities that the present appellants have played any
fraud or malpractice during the course of the examination or in
preparation of key-answers. It was only a mistake on the part of the
respondent authorities in preparing the key-answers. Thus, in the
facts of the present case the respondent authorities were duty
bound to follow the principles of natural justice and without giving
opportunity of hearing to the appellants their services ought not to
have been terminated.
13. In the case of Rajesh Kumar & Others (supra) relied upon by
learned advocate Mr. Gadhvi for the appellants, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in similar set of facts, observed in para 22 as under:
"22. In the result, we allow these appeals, set aside the
order passed by the High Court and direct that:
(1) answer scripts of candidates appearing in 'A' series of
competition examination held pursuant to advertisement
No.1406 of 2006 shall be got re-evaluated on the basis of
a correct key prepared on the basis of the report of Dr.
(Prof.) CN Sinha and Prof. KSP Singh and the
observations made in the body of this order and a fresh
merit list drawn up on that basis.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/15756/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/01/2026
undefined
(2) Candidates who figure in the merit list but have not
been appointed shall be offered appointments in their
favour. Such candidates would earn their seniority from
the date the appellants were first appointed in
accordance with their merit position but without any
back wages or other benefit whatsoever.
(3) In case writ petitioners-respondent nos. 6 to 18 also
figure in the merit list after re-evaluation of the answer
scripts, their appointments shall relate back to the date
when the appellants were first appointed with continuity
of service to them for purpose of seniority but without
any back wages or other incidental benefits.
(4) Such of the appellants as do not make the grade after
re-evaluation shall not be ousted from service, but shall
figure at the bottom of the list of selected candidates
based on the first selection in terms of advertisement
No.1406 of 2006 and the second selection held pursuant
to advertisement No.1906 of 2006.
(5) The needful shall be done by the respondents - State
and the Staff Selection Commission expeditiously but not
later than three months from the date a copy of this
order is made available to them."
14. The facts of the present case are almost similar to that of the
case decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vikas Pratap Singh &
Others (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held and
directed as under:
"27. Admittedly, in the instant case the error
committed by the respondent-Board in the matter of
evaluation of the answer scripts could not be attributed
to the appellants as they have neither been found to
have committed any fraud or misrepresentation in being
appointed qua the first merit list nor has the preparation
of the erroneous model answer key or the specious
result contributed to them. Had the contrary been the
case, it would have justified their ouster upon re-
evaluation and deprived them of any sympathy from
this Court irrespective of their length of service.
28. In our considered view, the appellants have
successfully undergone training and are efficiently
serving the respondent-State for more than three years
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/15756/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/01/2026
undefined
and undoubtedly their termination would not only
impinge upon the economic security of the appellants
and their dependants but also adversely affect their
careers. This would be highly unjust and grossly unfair
to the appellants who are innocent appointees of an
erroneous evaluation of the answer scripts. However,
their continuation in service should neither give any
unfair advantage to the appellants nor cause undue
prejudice to the candidates selected qua the revised
merit list.
29. Accordingly, we direct the respondent-State to
appoint the appellants in the revised merit list placing
them at the bottom of the said list. The candidates who
have crossed the minimum statutory age for
appointment shall be accommodated with suitable age
relaxation.
30. We clarify that their appointment shall for all
intents and purpose be fresh appointment which would
not entitle the appellants to any back wages, seniority
or any other benefit based on their earlier appointment.
31. The order passed by the High Court shall stand
modified to the above extent. Appeals disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs."
15. Keeping in mind the aforesaid decisions rendered by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajesh Kumar & Others (supra) and Vikas
Pratap Singh & Others (supra), we are of the opinion that in the
present case also the error committed by the respondent authorities
in the matter of preparation of the key-answers could not be
attributed to the appellants as they have neither been found to
have committed any fraud or misrepresentation in being appointed
qua the first merit-list nor in preparation of the erroneous key-
answers. Moreover, the appellants have worked on the post in
question for more than one and half years and because of
termination of the services of the appellants it would not only affect
the economic security of the appellants and their dependants but
also adversely affect their careers more particularly when most of
the appellants are more than 32 years of age and some of them are
more than 35 years of age. Thus, if their termination orders are not
quashed and set aside, it would be highly unjust and grossly unfair
to the appellants who are innocent appointees of an erroneous
preparation of the answer scripts. However, at the same time, we
are of the opinion that their continuation in service should neither
give any unfair advantage to the appellants nor cause undue
prejudice to the candidates selected qua the revised merit list. We
are informed that because of the interim relief granted by the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/15756/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/01/2026
undefined
learned Single Judge and thereafter by this Court, five posts of
Accountant are kept vacant so far as Letters Patent Appeal No.1303
of 2014 is concerned. Similarly, two posts of Accountant are kept
vacant so far as Letters Patent Appeal No.1304 of 2014 is
concerned. Thus, total seven posts are kept vacant by way of
interim orders."
(emphasis supplied)
11. In view of the aforesaid pronouncement and law stand as
on date, it is settled legal position and clear that wherever
there is an error committed by the respondent authority in
preparing the merit list / select list, and there being no fault
on the part of the appointed candidate appointed due to such
erroneous merit list / select list, than in a case where due to
any revision of the merit list / select list by the respondent
authority, the service of appointed candidate cannot be
terminated. At best, as held that in such circumstances, the
appointed candidate to be placed at the bottom of merit /
select list.
12. In the present case, as stated hereinabove, the petitioner
had served for more than three and a half years to the post of
Gram Sevak and being aged about 31 years at the time of
filing of this petition, cannot be allowed to suffer due to the
fault on the part of the respondents in preparing the merit /
select list. It may be true that there was a revision of the
select list due to some directions issued by this Court as
aforesaid, but undisputedly and undoubtedly, there is no fault
on the part of the petitioner when she got appointed as
aforesaid. Rather as per settled law, the petitioner could have
been placed in the bottom of merit / select list.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/15756/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/01/2026
undefined
13. In view of the foregoing reasons and the aforementioned
pronouncement, the impugned order dated 10/11/2020 is
hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are hereby
directed to reinstate the petitioner to her original post as
Gram Sevak, Class-III, as fresh appointment. The appropriate
order of the reinstatement of the service of the petitioner shall
be passed by the respondent concern.
13.1 Nonetheless, the petitioner will not be entitled to claim /
get any back wages, continuity of service, or seniority for her
past services. The petitioner shall be placed at the bottom of
the revised merit list / select list prepared by the respondents
for the aforesaid post.
13.2 The respondents are further directed to implement the
aforesaid direction within one month from the date of receipt
of a copy of this order.
14. In view of the above, the present petition is partly
allowed. Rule is made absolute, to the aforesaid extent. There
shall be no order as to costs.
15. Direct service is permitted.
(MAULIK J. SHELAT, J)
GAURAV J THAKER
