LPA/227/2008 1/7 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 227 of 2008 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2235 of 2008 With LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 229 of 2008 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2236 of 2008 With LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 230 of 2008 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2237 of 2008 With CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2347 of 2008 In LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 227 of 2008 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2235 of 2008 With CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2372 of 2008 In LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 229 of 2008 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2236 of 2008 With CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2378 of 2008 In LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 230 of 2008 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2378 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER ========================================================= 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 ? LPA/227/2008 2/7 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 ? ========================================================= VIMALKUMAR SHASHIKANT PATEL - Appellant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 3 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR AS SUPEHIA WITH MR MA PAREKH for Appellant(s) : 1, MS VS PATHAK, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 1, NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 2 - 4. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER Date : 05/05/2008 COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT) These three Appeals preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent arise from the common order dated 18th February, 2008 made by the learned Single Judge in above Special Civil Applications. Pursuant to the public notice dated 17th January, 2007 given by the respondent No.4 Bhil Seva Mandal, the appellants had applied for appointment as Vidya LPA/227/2008 3/7 JUDGMENT Sahayak in the Ashram Shala run by the respondent No.4. The appellants were called for interview and were selected on 14th March, 2007. According to the appellants, the respondent No.4 forwarded the list of selected candidates to the respondent No.3 Ashram Shala officer, Dahod for approval. Before the said selection list was approved, on 18th April, 2007 the State Government in its tribal development department issued a resolution revising procedure for selection and appointment of Vidya Sahayak in Ashram Shala. Paragraph 8 of the said resolution provides, inter alia, that in all cases of selection of Vidya Sahayak in Ashram Shala, which were not yet approved, the selection procedure and the NOC granted by the concerned authority would stand cancelled. It appears that in view of the said resolution, the appellants are not appointed inspite of their selection as Vidya Sahayaks. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants preferred the above writ petitions. The learned Single Judge has relied upon the above referred Resolution dated 18th April, 2007 and has held that the appellants, whose LPA/227/2008 4/7 JUDGMENT selection was not approved as on the date of the resolution, had no right to appointment. It is observed that “mere empanelment does not confer any right.” The learned Single Judge also noted that pending the petitions, a fresh selection procedure had already started. The appellants were allowed to appear at the interview in such fresh selection procedure, however, they failed to stand in competition with other candidates. We do agree with the learned Single Judge that mere empanelment did not confer right to appointment upon the appellants. It is also true that in view of the revised selection procedure, a fresh selection was required to be made. However, learned advocate Mr. Supehia has relied upon the corrigendum dated 27th September, 2007 issued by the State Government. He has submitted that by corrigendum dated 27th September, 2007, the State Government modified its earlier Resolution dated 18th April, 2007 in respect of the select list which were already prepared and forwarded to the concerned authority for approval and were pending approval as on 18th April, 2007. LPA/227/2008 5/7 JUDGMENT We have perused the said corrigendum dated 27th September, 2007. By the said corrigendum, 27 proposals, which were then pending before the concerned authority have been exempted from operation of the above referred paragraph 8 of the Resolution dated 18th April, 2007. Mr. Supehia has candidly admitted that the said 27 proposals did not include the proposals made by the respondent No.4 in respect of the selection of the appellants. He, however, has claimed the said benefit on the principles of equality. He has submitted that the proposal made by the respondent No.4 in respect of the selection of the appellants was forwarded to the concerned authority on 2nd April, 2007. The same was pending before the concerned authority as on 18th April, 2007. The appellants, therefore, be extended the same benefit as has been extended in 27 cases referred to in the corrigendum dated 27th September, 2007. Inspite of the specific contention raised by the appellants and the specific order made by this Court on 24th March, 2008, the State Government has not come LPA/227/2008 6/7 JUDGMENT forth with its reply nor the respondent No.4 has entered its appearance. In the said circumstances, we accept the statement made by the appellants that the respondent No.4 had forwarded the proposal in respect of the selection of the appellants on 2nd April, 2007 and that the said proposal was pending before the concerned authority as on 18th April, 2007. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the appellants were entitled to the equal treatment as those 27 cases referred to in the corrigendum dated 27th September, 2007. For the aforesaid reasons, the Appeals are allowed. The impugned order made by the learned Single Judge is set aside. The respondent authorities are directed to consider the proposal made by the respondent No.4 Bhil Seva Mandal in connection with the approval of the select list dated 14th March, 2007 and to grant approval in accordance with law as if the said proposal were exempted from the operation of paragraph 8 of the Government Resolution dated 18th April, 2007. The approval, if granted or refused for LPA/227/2008 7/7 JUDGMENT any reason, shall be communicated to the respondent No.4 forthwith. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within six weeks from the date of this order. Civil Applications stand disposed of. The parties will bear their own cost. The registry will maintain copy of this order in each Appeal. (Ms. R.M.Doshit, J.) (K.M.Thaker, J.) kdc