LPA/496/2007 1/8 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 496 of 2007 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7370 of 2007 With LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 497 of 2007 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7371 of 2007 With LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 1085 of 2007 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8993 of 2007 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 ? 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 civil judge ? ========================================================= CHETANDAN DHIRAJBHAI GADHAVI - Appellant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance :- LETTERS PATENT APPEAL Nos. 496 & 496 of 2007 MR PJ KANABAR for Appellant MS ML SHAH AGP for Respondent(s) : 1, MR HS MUNSHAW for Respondent(s) : 2, LPA/496/2007 2/8 JUDGMENT LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 1085 of 2007 MR PRABHAKAR UPADHYAY for Appellant MS ML SHAH AGP for Respondent No.1 MR RA MISHRA for Respondents no. 2 & 3 ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER 31st January, 2008 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT) The above Letters Patent Appeals No. 496 of 2007 & 497 of 2007, preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, arise from the common judgment and order dated 21st March, 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Applications No. 7370 of 2007 & 7371 of 2007. Letters Patent Appeal No. 1085 of 2007 arises from the judgment and order dated 4th April, 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 8993 of 2007. The appellants are the writ petitioners. All these Appeals involve similar questions of facts and law. The Appeals are, therefore, decided by this Common judgment. The petitioners are the residents of District Kheda. Their names are registered with the Employment LPA/496/2007 3/8 JUDGMENT Exchange Office, Kheda. In answer to the requisition made by the District Primary Education Committee, Kheda, the names of the petitioners were sponsored by the Employment Exchange Office for selection and appointment as Vidya Sahayak under the District Primary Education Committee. On receipt of the names from the Employment Exchange Office, the District Primary Education Officer, by communication dated 3rd February, 2007, called upon the petitioners to make application and submit it on 9th February, 2007 alongwith the original credentials. None of the petitioners could produce original credentials on the given date. The request made by the petitioners to grant sometime for production of documents did not find favour with the District Primary Education Officer. In absence of the original credentials, the petitioners were not considered for selection and appointment as Vidya Sahayak. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners preferred above referred writ petitions before this Court. Following the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and of this Court, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the claim of the writ petitioners. Feeling aggrieved, the writ petitioners LPA/496/2007 4/8 JUDGMENT have preferred the present Appeals. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were called upon to produce original credentials alongwith the application. It is also not in dispute that the writ petitioners failed to produce the original credentials. The Division Bench of this Court comprising Hon'ble Chief Justice Bhawani Singh & Mr. Justice H.K Rathod in their judgment dated 27th September, 2004 passed in Special Civil Application No. 7942 of 2004 and several other writ petitions has considered the policy of the State Government requiring production of the original credentials. The Bench has upheld the said policy. Before us, Mr. Kanabar has submitted that the procedure adopted by the District Primary Education Officer was contrary to Section 4 of the Employment Exchanges [Compulsory Notification of Vacancies] Act, 1959 [hereinafter referred to as, “the Act of 1959”]. He has also submitted that the writ petitioners had applied for appointment as Vidya Sahayak under the District Education Officer, Kachchh and had submitted their original credentials to the District Education Officer, Kachchh. The petitioners were, therefore, LPA/496/2007 5/8 JUDGMENT required to be granted some time to recover the original credentials from the District Primary Education Officer, Kachchh and to produce it before the respondent-authority. He has submitted that the District Education Officer, Kheda had also given a public notice inviting applications for selection and appointment as Vidya Sahayak. Under the said public notice, the applicants were granted 10 days' time to make application alongwith original credentials. However, in case of the petitioners whose names were sponsored by the employment exchange office, ten days' time was not granted. On the contrary, the communication was received on the last date for making application. Thus, compared to the other applicants who had applied in answer to the public notice, the writ petitioners have been meted discriminatory treatment. He has also submitted that the intimation sent to the writ petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 7370 of 2007 was sent at a wrong address. The said writ petitioner, therefore, did not receive communication in advance. He has submitted that in a similar case of one Tushar N. Oza [Special Civil Application No. 9907 of 2007 :: LPA/496/2007 6/8 JUDGMENT Decided on 20th June, 2007], the learned Single Judge granted indulgence and directed the respondent authority to issue call letter afresh to the said writ petitioner. Mr. Upadhyay has also assailed the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge. Mr. Upadhyay has submitted that the communication sent by the respondent authority was received by the writ petitioner on 9th February, 2007 – the date on which he was called upon to make application and to produce the original credentials. The request made by the said writ petitioner for grant of two days' time for producing the original credentials was also rejected. We are unable to agree with the contentions raised by the learned advocates. It is not in dispute that the Government policy requires that alongwith the application for selection and appointment as Vidya Sahayak, the applicant has to produce the original credentials. Challenge to the said policy before the Division Bench of this Court has failed. Further, it is not in dispute that in answer to the public notice, none of the writ petitioners had applied for selection and appointment as Vidya LPA/496/2007 7/8 JUDGMENT Sahayak, nor did they produce original credentials alongwith their application made in answer to the call notice. Section 4 of the Act of 1959 makes it obligatory for every establishment in the public sector to notify the vacancies in any employment to the Employment Exchange. Nothing in the said section affects the method or manner in which the recruitment should be made by the concerned authority. The contention that the respondent authority has acted in contravention of Section 4 of the Act of 1959 requires to be rejected outright. Mr. Kanabar has relied upon the communication dated 29th January, 2007 produced in Civil Application No. 4389 of 2007. He has submitted that the concerned policy requires production of original credentials within the stipulated period. However, in the instant case, the writ petitioners were called upon to produce the original credentials on a specified date. In other words, no time limit was fixed for production of the original credentials. The contention requires to be rejected outright. The communication dated 29th January, 2007 is not the Government policy. It is a mere communication to the LPA/496/2007 8/8 JUDGMENT respondent-authorities to call for names from the Employment Exchange and an intimation that the applicants who do not produce the original credentials within the stipulated time shall not be called for interview. Second, to allow certain time for production of original credentials is not different from specifying a particular date for production of the original credentials. The contention that the call notice to the petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 7370 of 2007 was sent at a wrong address is clearly an afterthought. The contention was not raised before the learned Single Judge. The said contention cannot be permitted to be taken up here in the Appeal. For the aforesaid reasons, the Appeals are dismissed. Civil Applications are disposed of. {Ms. R.M Doshit, J.} {K.M Thaker, J.} Prakash*