Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 275 (GUJ)

Patel Shilpaben Viththalbhai v. State of Gujarat

2019-03-28

A.J.SHASTRI

body2019
JUDGMENT : A J Shastri, J. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for the purpose of seeking the following reliefs :- "10(a) To quash and set aide the impugned orders of cancellation of the petitioners' appointment dated 22.12.2016 and 23.12.2016 passed by the respondent nos. 3 and 4 as per Annexure-H Colly.; (b) To direct re-reinstatement of the petitioner in service with continuity and all other consequential benefits; (c) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition, be pleased to stay the further operation of the impugned orders of cancellation of the petitioner's appointment dated 22.12.2016 and 23.12.2016 passed by the respondent nos. 3 and 4 as per Anneuxre-H Colly.; (d) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition, be pleased to restrain the respondents from altering the service conditions of the petitioner in any manner adverse to her and to allow her to discharge duties and to draw salaries as she was doing prior to the passing of the impugned orders; (e) To grant costs of this petition and to grant any other appropriate and just relief/s' 2. The short facts of the case are that respondents nos. 1 and 2 issued an advertisement on 15.04.2016 inviting applications for the post of 'Shikshan Sahayaks' in non-government granted Higher Secondary Schools. The petitioner applied for the said post of Shikshan Sahayak (Gujarati Medium) for the subject of Geography. The petitioner came to be duly selected for the post as per her merit and merit list was also published on 19.11.2016 in which the name of the petitioner is reflecting at Serial No. 52 in the merit list of the 77 candidates which was prepared. After that respondent no. 3 i.e. the District Education Officer issued letter dated 06.12.2016 directing respondents nos. 4 and 5 to give appointment to the petitioner in Shri M.N. Shah High School, Ramos, Taluka : Dhansura, District : Aravalli. Accordingly, the appointment orders were issued on 08.12.2016 and having accepted, the petitioner resumed the duty on the very same day. The said school has standard 9th to 12th as one unit and thereafter the petitioner was assigned teaching work in standard 9th 11th and 12th. Subsequently, according to the petitioner all of a sudden without any opportunity of hearing and without any legal justification, respondents nos. The said school has standard 9th to 12th as one unit and thereafter the petitioner was assigned teaching work in standard 9th 11th and 12th. Subsequently, according to the petitioner all of a sudden without any opportunity of hearing and without any legal justification, respondents nos. 3 and 4 passed orders dated 22.12.2016 and 23.12.2016 immediately within a period of few days cancelling the appointment of the petitioner. As a result of this, left with no other alternate, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court by way of present petition. 3. It appears that while issuing notice on 27.12.2016, this matter was originally tagged with Special Civil Application No. 20839 of 2016 and thereafter, it appears that the same has been placed before this Court, but not with the allied matter. Either side has not suggested as to why it has been de-linked from the aforesaid matter. However, be that as it may, without any resistance, and without agitating anything, both the learned advocates for the respective parties have canvassed their submissions. 4. Learned advocate Mr. K.B. Pujara appearing for the petitioner has submitted that once having granted the appointment and allowing the petitioner to discharge her function as a teacher, it would not be open for the authority to just cancel the appointment. That action being absolutely arbitrary, the same be set aside on this very ground. It has further been submitted that the hearing has not been afforded to the petitioner and unilaterally, the appointment with immediate effect has been cancelled. It appears that this cancellation has been at the dictation of the higher authorities which is uncalled for. Learned advocate Mr. Pujara has further submitted that the reason which has then circumvent with the petitioner is not clearing the basic examination in the subject in which the recruitment took place. But learned advocate Mr. Pujara has submitted that though undisputedly the petitioner may not have the relevant subject at the basic examination, but nonetheless, has been allowed to clear Teachers Aptitude Test (TAT) examination on the relevant subject and, therefore, irrespective of the fact that in the B.A., and M.A., degrees the petitioner might have cleared in the subject of history but the most relevant examination in which the petitioner has cleared with the relevant subject of Geography and after examining the same, the authority has granted the appointment. For the purpose of substantiating the contention, has drawn attention to page 17 of the petition compilation, whereby the certificate which has been issued on 14.06.2014 has clearly indicated that Question Paper No. II is the subject of Geography and the basic requirement is the subject relevant to the advertisement is the subject of TAT examination which undisputedly, the petitioner is having. Apart from this, the relevant weightage of marks is also substantially on the TAT examination and as such there is hardly any justification to cancel the appointment of the petitioner once having been allowed to discharge the function. Learned advocate Mr. Pujara has further submitted that even the conditions which have been stipulated in the advertisement is not permitting such action of cancellation. As a result of this, this being absolutely arbitrary termination/cancellation of the appointment by the authority, the action deserves to be corrected. 4.1. Additionally, learned advocate Mr. Pujara has submitted that even the evaluation of the eligibility which is reflecting on page 38 in which the petitioner has secured 60.59% as total merit in the subject of Geography which is relevant eligibility criteria and as such there is hardly any reason for the authority to discontinue the petitioner. In any case, this kind of cancellation is not permissible in the eye of law. Hence, the action is not justiciable in the eye of law. 4.2. For substantiating the aforesaid contentions, learned advocate Mr. Pujara has relied upon the decision which is delivered in the case of Chandrakala Trivedi v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., (2012) 3 SCC 129 and has submitted that once a person is provisionally selected to certain degree of reasonable expectation of selection being continued comes into existence. Hence, as a part of legitimate expectation as well, the petitioner should have been given appropriate opportunity to justify that her qualification was equivalent and there is no infirmity in it. It has been propounded that the word 'equivalent' must be given a reasonable meaning and the some degrees of flexibility should have been on the part of the authority especially when the TAT examination was cleared as Geography which is main examination and as such the appointment should not have been cancelled. Learned advocate Mr. It has been propounded that the word 'equivalent' must be given a reasonable meaning and the some degrees of flexibility should have been on the part of the authority especially when the TAT examination was cleared as Geography which is main examination and as such the appointment should not have been cancelled. Learned advocate Mr. Pujara has then submitted that a bare perusal of the degrees which the petitioner has obtained is not such drastically different which would visit the cancellation, Resultantly, the impugned order of cancellation is impermissible. 5. To meet with the stand taken by the learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Bhargav Pandya, learned AGP appearing for the respondent - State and Mr. A.D. Oza learned advocate appearing for respondents no. 6 have vehemently opposed the petition initially by contending that this identical issue is considered by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court and after observing in the case of similarly situated employees having no relevant subject like the petitioner, the Court has disposed of the petition and as such since the case of the petitioner is identically situated there is hardly any justification for the petitioner to agitate. Learned advocate Mr. Oza appearing for one of the contesting respondent has submitted that in the case of Chaudhari Dhananjay Popatlal v. State of Gujarat rendered in Special Civil Application No. 20839 of 2016 dated 12.03.2018 is one of the similarly situated candidate reflecting on page 88. Those petitions have been thoroughly examined and the Court has not considered the case of the said petitioner. There are other petitioner's case also, from the said list, which have been dealt with by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court. As a result of this, no case was entertained and the said petitions are disposed of as not pressed. Another detailed order which has been passed on 12.03.2018, along with all these orders are brought to the notice of this Court which have been passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court. 5.1. It has further been contended by the learned advocates for the respondents that the candidate is required to possess a graduation as well as masters degree in the concerned subject and undisputedly the petitioner was not having a relevant and the concerned subject in his B.A., as well as M.A., examination. 5.1. It has further been contended by the learned advocates for the respondents that the candidate is required to possess a graduation as well as masters degree in the concerned subject and undisputedly the petitioner was not having a relevant and the concerned subject in his B.A., as well as M.A., examination. So simply because in TAT examination, the petitioner is having a subject of Geography that would not permit the petitioner to be treated as having the concerned subject. It has been submitted that at length the co-ordinate Bench has examined the entire case on each issue. Hence, the learned advocates for the respondents have respectfully submitted that this is not a fit case in which any deviation be made. Learned advocates for the respondents have further submitted that the in every case, the opportunity of hearing may not be treated as fatal since the said principle of natural justice cannot be stretched to that level that it becomes unruly horse. Hence, when after granting an opportunity, even otherwise no change is to take place, than that empty formality may not be necessary and each case is depending upon its own individual set of circumstances and here also even if hearing is to be provided, then also, different subject in which the petitioner has undertaken B.A., as well as M.A., examination would not going to be altered and therefore, on this count of violation of the alleged principles of natural justice, the order is not be held to be invalid. Furthermore, learned advocate Mr. Oza has submitted that from the beginning the petitioner herself is aware about the fact that she is not holding the relevant subject in B.A., as well as M.A., examination and as such, she is not entitled to seek any relief on the basis of the principles of natural justice. In the subject of education normally, which subject would be most relevant is to be left it open for the expert body to decide and as such learned advocate Mr. Oza has submitted that since all those candidates who approached this Court by way of group of petitions having not been considered, the present petition is also to be dealt with in the same manner. Learned advocate Mr. Oza has submitted that since all those candidates who approached this Court by way of group of petitions having not been considered, the present petition is also to be dealt with in the same manner. Learned advocate Mr. Oza has then submitted that yet another decision in the case of Akil Gujarat Rajya Shala Sanchalak Mandal Through Trustees and Ors., v. State of Gujarat Through Chief Secretary & Ors., (2011) 5 GLR 3807 and by referring to the said decision, a contention is raised that no case is made out by the petitioner, 5.2. Yet another decision which has been brought to the notice of the Court is the decision delivered on 03.05.2016 in a group of petitions headed by Special Civil Application No. 9773 of 2015 in which 'relevant subject' is dealt with by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court and in para 70 and 71 it has been clarified that the relevant of subject or the inter-disciplinary nature of subject should be decided by the appointing authority with the help of special experts and as such, having found by the authority that the petitioner is not having degree undisputedly in the relevant subject, this issue may be left it open for the appointing authority. 5.3. In any case, learned advocate Mr. Oza appearing for the contesting respondents as well as learned AGP for the respondent - State have submitted that since other candidates have been dealt with as a part of precedent also, in the absence of any justifiable circumstances, no relief be extended to the petitioner. Hence, requested to dispose of the petition with costs. 6. As a part of rejoinder to the submissions made by the learned advocates for the respondent authorities, learned advocate Mr. Pujara has submitted the the principle of precedent is not to be observed as a straight-jacket formula. It has been contended that if the decision is given in ignorance either in the terms of the statue or the rules, having force of the statue or being not in conformity with the statutory provisions, would not be treated as a binding precedent and for that purpose. Learned advocate Mr. Pujara has relied upon the decision of the Full Bench in the case of Laxminarayan Vishwanath Arya v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2007) 5 MhLJ 7 . Yet another submission which has been made by learned advocate Mr. Learned advocate Mr. Pujara has relied upon the decision of the Full Bench in the case of Laxminarayan Vishwanath Arya v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2007) 5 MhLJ 7 . Yet another submission which has been made by learned advocate Mr. Pujara is that the petitioner has got more meritorious marks and as such simply because the case of the other employees is not considered by the co-ordinate Bench, ipso facto would not be considered as an obstacle to decide the case of the petitioner in which proper assistance is provided to the Court, from the basis of the material on record itself. Learned advocate Mr. Pujara has then relied upon another decision in the case of State of U.P. & Anr., v. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. and Anr., (1991) 4 SCC 139 and has then submitted that Article 141 of the Constitution of India shall not be stretched if the facts are different. One additional circumstance would make a world of difference in applying the principle of precedents. Since doctrine of per incuriam and sub-silentio is well recognized principle, the Court has ample power to examine the issue from a different angle as well. Learned advocate Mr. Pujara has further submitted that the co-ordinate Bench was not provided with the proper assistance and has not taken the Court at length, this Court can examine the issue from the additional factors which are submitted on the same record itself. Hence, learned advocate Mr. Pujara has requested to decide the issue independent of the decision which has taken place in the case of other candidates. 6.1. Learned AGP Mr. Pandya has then submitted in contrast to the submissions made by learned advocate Mr Pujara that if the marks which are reflecting in second column to be delinked, the petitioner has obtained merely 40.32 % of marks in TAT examination even if that is to be considered, the relevant subject then also the petitioner is much below the cut-off marks. As a result of this, no case is made out by the petitioner. Learned advocate Mr. Oza has then vehemently submitted that Regulation 20 which is tried to be pressed into service has no significance in view of the fact that the statutory rules which are framed under section 35 of the Act are to be given predominance and these Rules of 2011 are upheld and not challenged. Learned advocate Mr. Oza has then vehemently submitted that Regulation 20 which is tried to be pressed into service has no significance in view of the fact that the statutory rules which are framed under section 35 of the Act are to be given predominance and these Rules of 2011 are upheld and not challenged. As a result of this, the decision delivered by the co-ordinate Bench has to be applied with full force. By referring to the relevant observations from the said decision, a request is made not to grant any relief to the petitioner. Learned advocate Mr. Oza has further submitted that not only the relevant subject is interpreted by yet another co-ordinate Bench, but then also the effect of Regulation 20 cannot be read in isolation. So if the petitioner is not having the relevant subject in graduation and post graduation, no eligibility can be ascertained even by ignoring it. On the contrary, in the field of education more significant subject is stipulated with a sole object that the candidate can teach the students in better form which is ultimately in the best interests of the education. Hence, the subject which has been prescribed by the experts of the field and thereupon appointment to be made no adjustment of the relevant subject be undertaken in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Learned advocate Mr. Pujara has then submitted that the advertisement itself is not in consonance with the Rules. As a result of this, the cancellation which took place in arbitrary form deserves to be depreciated and the reliefs prayed for in the petition be granted in the interest of justice. 7. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and having gone through the material on record, it appears that an attempt is made by the learned advocate for the petitioner to make a different analysis then what has been done by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court as a part of judicial discipline, the Court is of the considered opinion ex-facie that even the co-ordinate Bench has examined the case of similar candidates of appointments, on the issue of the relevant subject, this Court is not inclined to take a different view. The judicial discipline requires that binding precedent must be scrupulously observed. The judicial discipline requires that binding precedent must be scrupulously observed. The contentions almost which have been canvassed are similar which appears to have been dealt with in detailed by the co-ordinate Bench as well. The relevant observations made by the Court with regard to the another candidate from this very list since, relevant, the same are reproduced hereinafter : "16. Mr. A.D. Oza, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.4 has given a chart for perusal of this Court as the respondent no.4 is the authority which conducts TAT examination in the State of Gujarat. Mr. Oza has further submitted that TAT examination was taken for various subjects including History and that too for different mediums, viz., Gujarati, English and Hindi and total 2365 candidates have cleared TAT examination in History cumulatively in all the three mediums. Mr. Oza, on the basis of the sheet of subject wise result, which was shown to the Court for perusal contended that TAT examination was taken by respondent no.4 Board in various subjects such as Gujarati, Maths, Biology, Chemistry, Physics, A/c. and Commerce, Psychology, Economics, Statistics, Geography, Sociology, Philosophy, Physical Education, History, English, etc. and that too medium wise. Mr. Oza therefore contended that the petitioner had a specific option to appear for TAT examination in History. Instead of that, voluntarily, the petitioner applied for TAT examination in Sociology and therefore, the petitioner cannot now contend that there was no History subject available in TAT. Mr. Oza further contended that as per the notification as well as the advertisement, the examination of TAT is an additional provision. Whereas, a candidate has to possess graduation as well as post graduation in the concerned subject. Adopting the arguments of Dr. Patel, learned AGP, Mr. Oza, further submitted that in the case on hand, the petitioner admittedly does not possess graduation as well as post graduation in Sociology subject and therefore is rightly not considered for selection. It was therefore submitted that the petition is meritless and the same deserves to be dismissed. 18. Upon considering the submissions made, considering the record of the petition, it would be worthwhile to note that the advertisement provided as under No. Qualification Maximum Marks 1. Graduate Degree in concerned subject 10 2. Post Graduate Degree in concerned subject, (If possesses) 10 3. Graduate Degree in professional subject i.e. B.Ed./B.P.Ed.etc. 10 4. 18. Upon considering the submissions made, considering the record of the petition, it would be worthwhile to note that the advertisement provided as under No. Qualification Maximum Marks 1. Graduate Degree in concerned subject 10 2. Post Graduate Degree in concerned subject, (If possesses) 10 3. Graduate Degree in professional subject i.e. B.Ed./B.P.Ed.etc. 10 4. Post Graduate Degree in professional subject i.e. M.Ed./M.P.Ed. Etc. (if possesses) 10 Total 30 19. The form which is submitted by the petitioner also indicates that the petitioner is B.A. With History, M.A. with History, B.Ed. & M.Ed. The form which is submitted by the petitioner online which is on record is admittedly for the post of Sikshan Sahayak in Sociology. In view of the aforesaid therefore, the petitioner does not possess any graduation degree or post graduation degree in Sociology, which is the concerned subject and in absence of such qualification, the petitioner becomes ineligible for the post of Sikshan Sahayak in Sociology. It is true that in TAT examination the petitioner has appeared for Sociology and has cleared the same, however, the essential and required qualifications are "graduation and post graduation in concerned subject, i.e., in Sociology" and the same is sine qua non for being considered for appointment as Sikshan Sahayak and any departure from that would render such appointment dehors the Rules. 21. Even the contention that B.A. with History is equivalent to B.A. in Sociology is nowhere provided and in the instant case, the petitioner having degree in B.A. & M.A. in History cannot be said to have acquired graduation and post graduation which is equivalent to Sociology by any stretch of imagination and therefore, as the Resolution dated 11.02.2011 clearly provides for bare minimum requirements and the required qualification as prescribed in it as graduation in concerned subject, post graduation in concerned subject, would definitely mean that the candidate who possesses graduation and post graduation in the concerned subject, as in the instant case sociology can only be considered for the post of Sikshan Sahayak in Sociology. Only because the petitioner has passed examination of TAT in Sociology would not take the case of the petitioner any further as such requirement is an additional requirement. 23. The Division Bench of this Court while considering the very notification dated 11.02.2011 has upheld the very circular. Only because the petitioner has passed examination of TAT in Sociology would not take the case of the petitioner any further as such requirement is an additional requirement. 23. The Division Bench of this Court while considering the very notification dated 11.02.2011 has upheld the very circular. In light of the ratio laid down by this Court in the case of Akhil Gujarat Rajya Shala Sanchalak Mandal & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., (2011) 5 GLR 3807 and in facts of this case, the petitioner does not possess the required qualification for the post of Sikshan Sahayak in Sociology as the petitioner is B.A. with History and M.A. with History and therefore, the petitioner is rightly not appointed as Sikshan Sahayak for the subject of Sociology as applied by the petitioner himself. 24. It deserves to be noted that only because online application was accepted and the details were considered and the petitioner was included in merit list as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent does not create any inherent right for being appointed in favour of the petitioner in the event the petitioner does not possess the minimum requirement, more particularly the requisite qualification. All the contentions therefore fail and the petition is therefore liable to be dismissed and is hereby rejected in limine. The ad interim relief granted earlier stands vacated. However, in facts of this case, there shall not no order as to costs. 8. It further appears that possibly all the candidates which are reflecting on page 88 substantially have made an attempt to seek the relief against cancellation, but have been withdrawn the challenge as not pressed. Additionally, it is also appearing from the issue of relevant subject, the observations made by the co-ordinate Bench in para 70, 71 and 73 are also relevant. Hence, reproduced hereinafter :- "70. On a clarification sought from the University Grants Commission as regards the meaning of the term " relevant subject", it was clarified that the relevance of subject or interdisciplinary nature of subject should be decided by the appointing authority with the help of subject experts as the University Grants Commission had not prescribed any norms on the subject matter. On a clarification sought from the University Grants Commission as regards the meaning of the term " relevant subject", it was clarified that the relevance of subject or interdisciplinary nature of subject should be decided by the appointing authority with the help of subject experts as the University Grants Commission had not prescribed any norms on the subject matter. Thus, this is the view of the matter of the University Grants Commission, which is an expert in academic matters and the Court should not set in appeal over its opinion and take a contrary view. 71. In Rajput Dalal v. Chaudhary Dala University, (2008) 9 SCC 284 , the Supreme Court observed thus in paras 30 to 33: "30. Learned counsel for the appellant has also pointed out that a large number of universities in this country have a single department for both the subjects of Political Science and Public Administration, and this also demonstrates that the subjects Political Science and Public Administration are interchangeable and interrelated. Political Science is the mother subject and Public Administration is the offshoot of the same. 31. We agree with Mr. Patwalia, learned counsel, that it is not appropriate for this Court to sit in appeal over the opinion of the experts who are of the view that Political Science and Public Administration are interrelated and interchangeable subjects, and hence a candidate who possesses Master's degree in Public Administration is eligible for the post of Lecturer in Political Science and vice-versa. We are told that a large number of persons having qualifications in the interchangeable/interrelated subjects have been appointed Readers/Professors/Lecturers and are continuing as such in various colleges and Universities in the State. 32. In para 5 of the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent-University before the High Court, it has been specifically stated therein that Public Administration is one of the branches of Political Science, and the appellant was selected by a Selection Committee consisting of eminent experts after evaluating his qualifications and work. 33. As regards the decision in Dr. Bhanu Prasad Panda vs. Chancellor, Sambalpur University (supra), we have carefully perused the same. 33. As regards the decision in Dr. Bhanu Prasad Panda vs. Chancellor, Sambalpur University (supra), we have carefully perused the same. In paragraph 5 of the said judgment it has been observed : "Though the Department concerned for which the appointment is to be made is that of 'Political Science and Public Administration', the appointment with which we are concerned, is of Lecturer in Political Science and not Public Administration and subject-matter wise they are different and not one and the same. It is not in controversy that the posts of Lecturers in Public Administration and in Political Science are distinct and separate and on selection the appellant could not have been appointed as Lecturer in Public Administration." 73. In the case in hand, the office of the Commissioner having regard to the grievances raised by the candidates had to constitute a committee of experts for its opinion and on receipt of the report, it though fit to take a decision that the degree at the UG level and PG level should be same, because a candidate, who would be appointed, would be teaching even at the UG level, and if the subject he would be teaching at the UG level was not his principal subject, then that would amount to compromising with the quality of higher education. In fact, for taking such a decision, power under Article 162 need not be exercised. Therefore, the insistence on the part of the petitioners that there should be an order or a Government Resolution under Article 162 of the Constitution of India, is not tenable in law." 9. From the aforesaid situation which is prevailing, it is not in dispute as found by the Court that except TAT examination, the petitioner has not cleared rest of the examination in the relevant subject of Geography and true construction of the statutory rules is indicating that the eligibility criteria which has been prescribed is that the candidate must possess the degree in relevant subject. Since the co-ordinate Bench has undertaken this very exercise of analysis in an identical issue, the Court in such a situation is not inclined to accept the submissions made by the learned advocate for the petitioner. Since the co-ordinate Bench has undertaken this very exercise of analysis in an identical issue, the Court in such a situation is not inclined to accept the submissions made by the learned advocate for the petitioner. So far as the principles of natural justice being violative is concerned, no doubt, apparently it may look like that, but then this principles of natural justice is not possible to be stretched beyond proportion particularly in view of the fact that even after giving an opportunity, the ground reality of not clearing the graduation and post graduation in the relevant subject is not going to be altered and as such the mistake may not be allowed to be perpetuated. 10. Yet another submission which is not possible to be ignored by the Court is that the educational qualification which is mentioned by the petitioner is undisputedly not in the relevant subject, except TAT examination and, therefore, when the appointing authority is insisting a particular subject, such experts opinion would not be made as a subject matter of judicial review. As has been held by series of decision, including the decision delivered by the Apex Court in the case of Sameer Suresh Gupta through PA Holder V/s. Rahul Kumar Agarwal, (2013) 9 SCC 374 . that normally the judicial review on the experts opinion should not be undertaken, this Court would not like to deviate from such pronouncement and accordingly, the Court is of the view that no case is made out by the petitioner. One additional circumstance also is not to be overlooked is that the Rules which are framed vide notification dated 11.02.2011 are having statutory effect and are upheld by the Court and so long as those Rules are in existence and Regulation 20 of the Act of 1972, cannot be resorted to more particularly, when in the year 2011, in exercise of Section 35 of the Act itself, new Rules have prescribed the eligibility criteria and no different reading is possible to be curled out since the co-ordinate Bench has examined the issue at length and has specifically opined. 10.1. Before the judgment is pronounced, learned advocate Mr. 10.1. Before the judgment is pronounced, learned advocate Mr. Pujara has drawn attention of this Court to one of the decision delivered on 15.10.2108 rendered in Special Civil Application No.9331 of 2017 and has requested that in this case almost similar situation is considered by the Court and has taken a different view then what has been taken by the Court in Special Civil Application No. 20839 of 2016. While examining this decision, it has been found by the Court that Special Civil Application No. 20839 of 2016 is related to the candidate from the same list of the present case and the issue at length has been examined. Additionally, it has further been found that the co-ordinate Bench has dealt with the matters of other candidates from the very same list in which the present petitioner was placed and has disposed of all these petitions. Undisputedly, the present petitioner is also out of the very same list which has been dealt with by the co-ordinate Bench on 12.03.2018, as referred to above. Hence, this Court is unable to deviate from the decision delivered on 12.03.2018 and the case of the petitioner is also dealt with by considering this very decision. Since the petitioner is forming part of the very same list, the Court is of the view that the law of precedent as clearly defined by the Apex Court and as propounded that if there is slight change in the fact and one additional fact if found, would make a world of difference in applying the precedent. Resultantly, since the facts are different from the decision which has been lastly pointed out by learned advocate Mr. Pujara the same will not apply here, particularly, when the Court was dealing with the different sets of employees and not from the list in which the present petitioner was finding place. Accordingly, the decision rendered in the Special Civil Application No. 9331 of 2017 is not possible to be applied mechanically by this Court, particularly when several petitions have been disposed of the petitioners who were forming part of the same list in which the petitioner was also part thereof. 11. In view of the aforesaid set of circumstance, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case is made out by the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed. 11. In view of the aforesaid set of circumstance, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case is made out by the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.