SCA/5301/2007 1/8 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5301 of 2007 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5343 of 2007 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 19112 of 2007 To SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 19114 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 ? ========================================================= CHAUDHARY JAYESHKUMAR LAVJIBHAI & 5 - Petitioner(s) Versus THE CHIEF SECURITY COMMISSIONER, & 2 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR MEHUL SHARAD SHAH for Petitioners MS SEJAL K MANDAVIA for Respondent(s) : 1 & 2, Ms TRUSHA PATEL AGP for Respondent(s) : 3, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER 17th December, 2008 COMMON JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT) SCA/5301/2007 2/8 JUDGMENT The petitioners in this group of petitions challenge the action of the respondent-Western Railway in cancelling the selection of the petitioners as constables in Railway Protection Force. On 24th February, 2006, the Western Railway gave a public advertisement inviting applications for appointment to 202 posts of constables in Railway Protection Force/Railway Special Protection Force from amongst the eligible candidates belonging to other backward classes and Ex-servicemen in the Gujarat State and Union Territories of Daman, Diu, Dadra & Nagar Haveli. The said public notice also provided that the candidates must be of other backward classes specified in Resolutions dated 13th September, 1993 and 20th October, 1994 issued by the Government of India in its Ministry of Welfare. In answer to the said public notice, the petitioners applied for appointment as constables. They also produced certificate issued by the concerned mamlatdar certifying that the applicant concerned belonged to “Anjana Chaudhary” community which was recognized as backward class under the above referred Resolutions dated 13th September, 1993 and 20th October, 1994. The petitioners under-went the selection procedure. By communication dated 1st May, 2006, the petitioners were instructed to report for medical examination. SCA/5301/2007 3/8 JUDGMENT After they were declared medically fit, under communication dated 15th December, 2006, the petitioners were informed that they were selected for appointment as constable in Railway Protection Force. They had to attend initial training at Kharagpur (W.B.) on condition, inter alia, that during the period of training they would be paid stipend and other allowances. Before they were sent for training as constables, the certificates produced by them were referred to the concerned Mamlatdar for verification. On such verification, the mamlatdar informed the Western Railways that the “Anjana Chaudhary” community to which the petitioners belong was not specified as backward class under the above referred Government Resolutions dated 13th September, 1993 and 20th October, 1994. On receipt of the said information, by order dated 30th January, 2007, the selection of the petitioners was cancelled. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners have preferred the present petitions. Learned advocate Mr. Shah has appeared for the petitioners. He has challenged the above referred Order dated 30th January, 2007 on several grounds. He, however, does not dispute that the petitioners do belong to Anjana Chaudhary community of Mehsana District. He also admits that the said community is not recognized as “other backward class” under SCA/5301/2007 4/8 JUDGMENT the above referred Resolutions dated 13th September, 1993 and 20th October, 1994. Mr. Shah has submitted that the petitioners had produced certificates that were issued by the concerned mamlatdar. If mamlatdar had committed any mistake, the petitioners ought not to be made to suffer. He has submitted that the petitioners are other backward class people recognized by the State of Gujarat. Pursuant to the applications invited by the Western Railways, the petitioners did apply and under-went extensive and rigorous selection procedure. Since the petitioners were selected for appointment as constables, the petitioners did not apply for appointment to other services, thereby they have altered their position to their detriment. He has pressed into service the principle of promissory estoppel. He has next submitted that several other people of the same community have been selected as constables in Railway Protection Force as “other backward class candidates” and have been serving as such for many years. Even, amongst the candidates selected alongwith the petitioners, some were appointed and were sent for training at Hyderabad and they have also been posted on various duties, as mentioned in the petition. The petitioners have thus been discriminated, though they are similarly situated. He has next contended that even SCA/5301/2007 5/8 JUDGMENT pending these petitions, the Western Railways initiated a fresh recruitment process on 1st June, 2007. He has submitted that the persons selected pursuant to the said recruitment procedure have secured marks lesser than the present petitioners. Hence, the petitioners should be accommodated against the available vacancies advertised on 1st June, 2007. The petitions are contested by the Western Railways. Learned advocate Ms. Mandavia has appared for the Western Railways. She has submitted that the public advertisement specifically referred to the above referred Resolutions dated 13th September, 1993 and 20th October, 1994. Thus, there was no ambiguity that the concerned candidates were required to be “other backward class” people as mentioned in the said two resolutions. Evidently, the certificates produced by the petitioners did not give out the correct position. On realizing that the certificates produced by the petitioners were false or incorrect, their selection was cancelled. She has submitted that on 24th February, 2006, applications were invited from specified class of candidates and it was confined to the candidates from the State of Gujarat and Union Territories specified in the advertisement. It was a special drive for recruitment of constables from amongst that class of people. The recruitment procedure initiated on 1st June, 2007 was a SCA/5301/2007 6/8 JUDGMENT general recruitment process for eligible candidates from all over the country. The two recruitment processes were not comparable. The petitioners cannot be accommodated against the post advertised on 1st June, 2007. She has also submitted that the recruitment process initiated pursuant to 1st June, 2007 advertisement is complete. The persons selected have already been sent for training. They cannot now be replaced by the petitioners. We are afraid, we are unable to agree with Mr. Shah. First, as admitted by Mr. Shah, the petitioners did not qualify as “other backward class” candidates. They were not eligible for selection and appointment pursuant to the advertisement dated 24th February, 2006. Second, the petitioners secured selection on the basis of the certificates produced by them certifying that the petitioners did qualify as “other backward class” candidates as specified in the Resolutions dated 13th September, 1993 and 20th October, 1994. Thus, the petitioners' candidature was based on false information. Be that a mistake by the concerned mamlatdar, the fact remains that the petitioners were not eligible for recruitment pursuant to the advertisement dated 24th February, 2006. It does seem very strange that the mamlatdars sitting in various corners of the state should commit identical mistake. The matter, in our SCA/5301/2007 7/8 JUDGMENT opinion, does require further investigation and action; if necessary. But, we leave it to the good sense of the State of Gujarat to inquire into the matter how an identical mistake has been committed by the concerned mamlatdars. Third, by mere selection, the petitioners did not acquire a right to appointment. The claim based on the principle of promissory estoppal requires to be rejected outright. As to the recruitment process commenced on 1st June, 2007, it should be noted that none of the petitioners applied for selection pursuant to the public notice dated 1st June, 2007. On 1st June, 2007, the petitioners were aware of cancellation of their selection. If the petitioners chose not to apply in answer to the public notice, they cannot claim a right to selection/appointment against the vacancies advertised in the said public notice. Besides, the two recruitment procedures being totally different incidents, the results were not comparable. The petitioners' claim for accommodation against the posts advertised on 1st June, 2007 is, in our opinion, misconceived and requires to be rejected. As to the discrimination, it is indisputable that the persons referred to in the memo of the petition were selected for appointment alongwith the petitioners. They were also sent SCA/5301/2007 8/8 JUDGMENT for training. However, they were not yet appointed. The infirmity in their selection was noticed before they completed the training and before they were given appointment. The selection of those persons has also been cancelled for that reason. They are before us in Special Civil Application Nos.4179, 5440, 5441, 4180 and 4181 of 2008. The question of discrimination does not arise. We are of the opinion that once the petitioners are found to be ineligible for selection and appointment pursuant to the advertisement dated 24th February, 2006; their selection is found to be based on false certificate issued by the concerned mamlatdar and produced by them, any claim for appointment pursuant to such selection requires to be rejected. No other contention is raised before us. For the aforesaid reasons, we dismiss these petitions. Rule nisi issued in each petition is discharged. The parties will bear their own cost. Registry will maintain copy of this order in each petition. {Miss R.M Doshit, J.} {K.M Thaker, J.} Prakash*