LPA/218/2008 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 218 of 2008 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2916 of 2004 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 ? ========================================================= DAMOR USHABEN MOHANSINH & 25 - Appellant(s) Versus GUJARAT SUB-ORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION BOARD & 2 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR JV JAPEE for Appellant(s) : 1 - 26. None for Respondent(s) : 1 - 3. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER Date : 16/05/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT) This Appeal, preferred under Clause 15 of the LPA/218/2008 2/4 JUDGMENT Letters Patent, arises from the common judgment and order dated 15th March, 2004 passed by the learned Single Judge in so far as the Special Civil Application No.2916 of 2004 is dismissed. The appellants are some of the reserved category candidates selected for appointment to the posts of Clerk, Clerk-cum-Typist (English) and Clerk-cum- Typist (Gujarati) under the State Government, pursuant to the advertisement dated 20th June, 1996. It is the grievance of the appellants that against more than thousand posts advertised, a select list of only 897 candidates was prepared. Amongst the 897 candidates selected, some 237 were appointed till the year 2000. In other words, against 1050 posts for reserved category candidates advertised in the year 1996, till the date, only 237 candidates are appointed. In answer to the writ petition, the State Government came out with a specific case that against the said vacancies, some appointments were made on compassionate grounds and redeployment of surplus staff. In the meantime, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in respect of implementation of the reservation policy, the state Government has revised its existing reservation LPA/218/2008 3/4 JUDGMENT policy by its Circular dated 31st August, 1999. On computation of vacancies reserved for various categories afresh under the Circular of 1999, the backlog of the unfilled reserved posts has been considerably reduced. The learned Single Judge has considered the rival contentions. The learned Single Judge was of the opinion that in view of the aforesaid changed circumstances and the fact that the appellants did not have indefeasible right to appointment, no indulgence was called for. The petition has, accordingly, been rejected. We are in agreement with the learned Single Judge. In addition to the subsequent development which has considerably reduced the number of vacancies available for appointment of reserved category candidates, we are of the opinion that the operation of the select list prepared pursuant to the advertisement published in the year 1996 after more than 10 years would in itself be arbitrary, unfair and injusticiable. The Appeal is dismissed in limine. Civil LPA/218/2008 4/4 JUDGMENT Application stands disposed of. (Ms. R.M.Doshit, J.) (K.M.Thaker, J.) kdc