SCA/6604/1990 1/5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6604 of 1990 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE =============================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? =============================================== DEVJIBHAI B CHAUHAN. Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & Another. =============================================== Appearance : MR SUNIL K SHAH with MS SUSHMA S SHAH for the Petitioner. MR KD PANDYA, AGP, for Respondents No. 1 & 2. =============================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A. L. DAVE Date : 15/02/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner was placed at Serial No.117 in the waiting list prepared for the post of Sepoy in the prisons of the respondent- SCA/6604/1990 2/5 JUDGMENT authorities. The said list was prepared in the year 1987. When no appointment/posting was given to the petitioner, he addressed a communication to I.G.P. (Prison) on 12.1.1990, inquiring about the approximate time as to when he would be given appointment. By communication dated 25th January, 1990, he was informed that the said waiting list dated 16.9.1987 was cancelled and, therefore, no appointment can be given to him. He, thereafter, addressed communications calling for the reasons as to why the waiting list was cancelled, but no reply was given to him. He, therefore, preferred this petition, inter alia, seeking the following prayers :- “(A) quashing and setting aside the impugned decision of the respondents to cancel the waiting list prepared in 1987 as communicated by letter dated 25.1.1990 at Annexure 'E'; (B) directing the respondents to operate the waiting list for the post of Jail Sepoys prepared in September 1987 and to make appointments to the vacant posts of Jail Sepoys on that basis; (C) pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this writ petition, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to restrain the respondents from making any appointment to the post of Jail Sepoy and without first operating the waiting list prepared in September 1987; (D) pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this writ petition, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to operate the waiting list for the posts of Jail Sepoys prepared in September 1987;” SCA/6604/1990 3/5 JUDGMENT 2. At the time of admission, ad-interim relief was granted directing that one post of Sepoy be kept vacant without prejudice to the contentions of the respondents till 18.4.1991. Thereafter, by order dated 19.6.1991, interim relief was granted to the effect that one post of Jail Sepoy be kept vacant without prejudice to the contentions of the respondents to continue till final disposal of the petition. Thereafter, the petition has been listed on number of occasions for final hearing. 3. In the meantime, the respondent authorities have filed affidavit-in-reply on 29.6.2006, inter alia, contending that the petitioner has no right to be appointed as a Sepoy simply because his name was included in the waiting list. It was also contended that the waiting list was cancelled as it was against the settled practice of preparing a select list of about 50 per cent more persons than the vacant posts. It has also been averred in the reply that persons upto serial No.72 were given appointments as Sepoys and there was no vacancy at the relevant time. Since the name of the petitioner figured at serial No.117, persons with better performance at serial Nos.73 to 116 would have sufferred, if the case of the petitioner was considered positively. 4. Learned Advocate, Ms. Shah, appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was listed in the waiting list after following due procedure. He has not been given appointment and it is said that the said list is cancelled. But persons below him in the waiting list have been given appointment by the respondent authorities. She also submitted that the petitioner is still without a permanent job. He is aged 42 years and will have about 16 years available for rendering services before he reaches the age of superannuation. She submitted that the petition may, therefore, be entertained and the reliefs, as prayed for, may be granted. SCA/6604/1990 4/5 JUDGMENT 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader, Mr. Pandya, has opposed this petition. According to him, it is incorrect to say that persons appearing on the waiting list below the petitioner have been given appointment. In fact, it is stated by responsible officer of the respondent that appointments were given only upto serial No.72 in the waiting list. The petitioner has neither controverted this aspect nor has he been able to give any details of such persons who are appointed, whose names figured down below the name of the petitioner in the waiting list. Mr. Pandya submitted further that the petitioner is now age barred and, therefore also there is no question of giving appointment to the petitioner by allowing this petition. He, therefore, submitted that the petition may be dismissed. 6. Having regard to rival side contentions, the first and foremost point that requires to be considered is that the petitioner gets no right to be appointed only because his name is included in the waiting list. 7. The petitioner has alleged that persons whose names appeared below his name in the waiting list have been given appointment, but has not given any details of such persons nor has he chosen to controvert the say of the respondent in the affidavit-in-reply in paragraph 6, where is it specifically stated that appointments were made only upto serial No.72. 8. It is also worth a note that the petitioner is, by now, 42 years of age as his date of birth is 4.2.1966 and he may not meet with the eligibility criterion of age. SCA/6604/1990 5/5 JUDGMENT 9. In light of the foregoing discussion, no relief, as prayed for in the petition, can be granted in favour of the petitioner. The petition has, therefore, to fail and stands dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief is vacated. No costs. [ A. L. DAVE, J. ] gt