Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 75 (GUJ)

Secretary v. Sathwara Chandrikaben Nathalal

2013-02-11

R.D.KOTHARI, RAVI R.TRIPATHI

body2013
JUDGMENT : Ravi R. Tripathi, J. The present appeal is filed by the Secretary, Gujarat Public Service Commission being aggrieved by judgment and order dated 11.10.2002 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 3789 of 2002. The learned Single Judge was pleased to pass the following order:- "12. In view of the above discussion, the petition is allowed. Respondent No. 1 is directed to forward the name of the petitioner as a person at Sr. No. 1 for the post of Child Development Project Officer to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 within one week from today and thereafter respondent Nos. 2 and 3 shall take further action within one month from the date of receipt of the writ of this Court or a certified copy of this order, whichever is earlier, for appointment of the petitioner on the post of Child Development Project Officer in accordance with law and in light of the observations made in this judgment. In view of the fact admitted by the GPSC in their reply affidavit that the petitioner's name was the only one name in the wait list as stated in the GPSC letters dated 15.4.2000 and 7.1.2002, even if respondent Nos. 2 and 3 do not receive any communication from the GPSC within one month from the date of receipt of the writ of this Court, as stated above, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 shall proceed to take appropriate action in compliance with the directions given hereinabove. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs." 2. Learned Advocate Ms. Roopal R. Patel for the appellant vehemently submitted that the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge is without taking note of an important fact, i. e. contents of the minutes of the meeting of the appellant (GPSC), which is produced by way of Annexure-II to the affidavit in reply affirmed by one Shri Ashvinkumar Kandoi, S/o Shri Jethalal Kandoi on 6th blank 2002. Annexure-II - minutes of the meeting of the appellant is dated 04.04.2000. The opening part of the same reads as under:- "Result of the interviews for the post of Child Development Programme Officer, GHS, Class-II Advt. No. 3/97-98 held by the Gujarat Public Service Commission on 27, 28, 29 and 30th March, 2000. I. The following candidates are selected: xxxxx II. The opening part of the same reads as under:- "Result of the interviews for the post of Child Development Programme Officer, GHS, Class-II Advt. No. 3/97-98 held by the Gujarat Public Service Commission on 27, 28, 29 and 30th March, 2000. I. The following candidates are selected: xxxxx II. The following candidate is selected and is kept on waiting list: 1. Kum. Chandrikaben Nathalal Sathwara (SEBC) (34)" 2.1 Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that the contents of Annexure-D to the petition were required to be appreciated in light of the contents of Annexure-II to the affidavit in reply. Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that in view of the contents of Annexure-II to the affidavit in reply, it was a clear case of error on the part of the appellant-GPSC and an error cannot be ordered or directed to be perpetuated. 2.2 Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that it was a matter of recruitment from open market to the post of Child Development Programme Officer. The wait list, under which right is claimed, was to be operative till 12.04.2002. The petition was filed on 05.04.2002 and the Court did not grant any interim relief at the time of admission of the matter. The petition came to be allowed only by judgment and order dated 11.10.2002. In absence of any interim relief, the wait list stood expired on 12.04.2002. Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that this is beside the aforesaid contention that there was a bonafide error in letter dated 15.04.2000, a copy of which is produced at Annexure-D to the petition. 2.3 Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that even otherwise in view of the fact that the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge was dated 11.10.2002, which came to be stayed by judgment and order dated 02.07.2003 in Civil Application No. 1473 of 2003, in Letters Patent Appeal No. 220 of 2003, the matter has become infractuous. 3. Taking into consideration the aforesaid submissions, more particularly the contents of Annexure- II to the affidavit in reply, the Court deems it proper to allow this appeal. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The judgment and order dated 11.10.2002 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 3789 of 2002 is quashed and set aside. No costs. Appeal allowed.