Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 2144 (GUJ)

Patni Komal Babubhai v. State Of Gujarat

2024-12-04

NIRZAR S.DESAI

body2024
JUDGMENT : Nirzar S. Desai, J. 1. Since, the issue involved in all these matters is common, with the consent of the learned Advocates for the parties, the same are taken-up for final hearing and disposal together, today. 1.1 RULE. Learned AGP, Ms. Pancholi, waives service for the Respondents in each matter. 2. By way of these petitions, the petitioners have challenged the decision to cancel the Advertisement No. 178/2018-19, issued by the Gujarat Subordinate Services Selection Board-Respondent No.2 herein, for the purpose of recruitment on the post of Supervisor Instructor (Beauty Culture and Hair Dressers Group). The petitioners have also prayed that the Respondents be directed to proceed further with the recruitment process, in connection with Advertisement No. 178/2018-19, from the stage, from where, it was canceled. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that they all applied for the post of Supervisor Instructor (Beauty Culture and Hair Dressers Group), pursuant to the Advertisement No. 178/2018-19, and they all cleared the written examination, as well. Pursuant thereto, the petitioners also appeared in the computer proficiency examination, but, the result of the same was never declared and abruptly, the entire recruitment came to be canceled, later on. Hence, the petitioners have filed the present petitions, challenging the aforesaid action on the part of the Respondents. 4. At the outset, learned GP, Mr. Virk, appearing with learned AGP, Ms. Pancholi, and learned AGP, Mr. Pathak, for the Respondents submitted that the issue, which is being agitated by way of these petitions, has already been decided by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 05.08.2021, passed in Special Civil Application No. 9001 of 2021. When the aforesaid order was carried in appeal, by way of Letters Patent Appeal No. 915 of 2021, the Division Bench of this Court confirmed the order of the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 26.10.2021 and dismissed the same. It was, thereby, submitted that the res-judicata is operating against the present petitioners, as far as the issue under challenge in these petitions is concerned, which has attained finality. It was, therefore, prayed that this Court may not entertain this petition and the same may be dismissed. 5. On the other hand, learned Advocate, Mr. It was, thereby, submitted that the res-judicata is operating against the present petitioners, as far as the issue under challenge in these petitions is concerned, which has attained finality. It was, therefore, prayed that this Court may not entertain this petition and the same may be dismissed. 5. On the other hand, learned Advocate, Mr. Gadhvi, appearing for the petitioners, though, made arguments at length, he could not dispute the fact that the issue involved in these petitions has already been decided by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 05.08.2021 and the same has also been confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 26.10.2021. It was, therefore, prayed that this Court may pass the appropriate orders. 6. Having heard the learned Advocates for the parties and having perused the material on record, since, it is not in dispute that the issue involved in these petitions is squarely covered by the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 05.08.2021, rendered in Special Civil Application No. 9001 of 2021 and the same is confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 26.10.2021, rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No. 915 of 2021, this Court is not required to examine the grievance or the issue raised by the petitioners in these petitions, afresh. 6.1 At this stage, it would be profitable to refer to the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court, while disposing of Letters Patent Appeal No. 915 of 2021, vide order dated 26.10.2021, which read thus; “3. It appears that for the purpose of recruitment to the post of Supervisor- Instructor (Beauty Culture and Hair Dresses Group) respondent No.2, the Gujarat Subordinate Service Selection Board issued advertisement No.161/2018-2019 to 180/2018-2019 covering different post in which advertisement No.178/2018-2019 was for the aforesaid category of post. The petitioners applied and participated in the process. The competitive examination was held as per the prescription in the advertisement on 11.7.2019. The result was declared. The names of the petitioners figured in the list of qualified candidates at serial Nos.9 and 25, as per the case of the petitioner. 3.1 It is stated that the petitioners also gave written examination whereafter they were called for competitive proficiency test. In other words, it was averred that virtually entire selection process was over, the stage of offering actual appointment, however did not reach. 3.1 It is stated that the petitioners also gave written examination whereafter they were called for competitive proficiency test. In other words, it was averred that virtually entire selection process was over, the stage of offering actual appointment, however did not reach. The petitioners have contented that they expected the issuance of the appointment order in their favour. 3.2 The respondents however cancelled and suspended the entire recruitment process, from the communication dated 1.7.2021 addressed by the Deputy Secretary of the respondent No.2 Board to one of the petitioner (Annexure E at Page 60) in the compilation of the petition indicates that due to some proposed changes in the Rules, the instant process of recruitment was halted and decided not to be carried out. This decision of the authorities gave cause of action to the petitioners to file the writ petition. 3.3 It could be noticed from the prayer clause reproduced above that the petitioners wanted the authorities to declare the result for the post of Supervisor- Instructor (Beauty Culture and Hair Dresses Group) pursuant to the advertisement of written as well as computer proficiency test which was not declared, further prayer was to complete the process of recruitment under the prevalent Rules. The prayer rested there. It is to be noted that the petitioners were not given any appointment, even the result of the computer proficiency test and the written test were not declared. The stage which obtained in the process of recruitment was only the publication of list of candidates qualified for computer proficiency test. It is at this stage that the decision to cancel the process was taken. In any case, the authorities decided to drop the recruitment process. 4. Learned advocate for the petitioner raised submission that the cancellation of recruitment process in the midst and certain stages were exhausted was arbitrary and it deprived the petitioners right to be appointed. He contended that the process ought to have been completed under the existing rules. In support of his submissions and pressing for grant of the prayer made in the writ petition, learned advocate for the petitioner relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Arjun Singh Rathore & Others Vs. B.N.Chaturvedi & Others, [ (2007) 11 SCC 605 ]. Yet another decision also of the Supreme Court in Sandeep Singh Vs. State Of Haryana, [ (2002) 10 SCC 549 ] was pressed into service. B.N.Chaturvedi & Others, [ (2007) 11 SCC 605 ]. Yet another decision also of the Supreme Court in Sandeep Singh Vs. State Of Haryana, [ (2002) 10 SCC 549 ] was pressed into service. 4.1 On going through the said decisions, it could be noticed at the outset that in Arjun Singh Rathore (supra), the question before the Court was about the occurring of vacancies prior to the promulgation of the new Rules. It was held that vacancies were required to be filled up according to the old Rules of 1988 even though the interviews were held in the year 2000 when the new Rules had already been notified. The entire context of facts and issue involved were different in said decision and has no bearing with the facts of the present case. 4.2 In Sandeep Singh (supra) the Supreme Court was concerned with the number of post to be filled in light of the vacancies available. It was held that the vacancies available up to the date of interview should be filled up. The facts of this case also stands completely diversed from the issue involved in the controversy. 5. It is trite position of law that candidate does not acquire any right until he is actually appointed. Even the placement in the select list or wait list will not result into any enforceable right to be appointed. Here the process of recruitment was cancelled for the reasons which the authorities deemed appropriate to act upon. The employer is the master of conducting the recruitment process. It is entirely his discretion if for some reason, the process is to be stopped. We find in this case that for valid reasons the process of recruitment came to be discontinued at the stage obtained above when only the list of candidates qualified for computer proficiency test was notified. 5.1 The Court cannot force the employer to proceed and complete the process when no rights of the any of the candidates have accrued, nor any final list was published in the recruitment process. 5.2 Additionally, it could be further seen from the paragraph No.3 of the impugned order that learned advocate for the petitioners then appearing before learned Single Judge conceded that in view of the cancellation of the advertisement, itself and the process having been discontinued, the petitioners would not be able to seek their appointment. 6. 5.2 Additionally, it could be further seen from the paragraph No.3 of the impugned order that learned advocate for the petitioners then appearing before learned Single Judge conceded that in view of the cancellation of the advertisement, itself and the process having been discontinued, the petitioners would not be able to seek their appointment. 6. We find that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners were not entitled to get any relief prayed for in the Special Civil Application. The dismissal of the petition was proper. 7. The appeal is summarily dismissed.” 6.2 In view of the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court, which are reproduced herein above, the challenge made in these petitions are covered by the above decision and hence, the present set of petitions is required to be dismissed. 7. Resultantly, all these petitions fail and the same are dismissed, accordingly. Rule is discharged in each matter. 7.1 In view of the disposal of the main matter, the connected civil application shall not survive and the same also stands disposed of, accordingly.