REPORTABL
E
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4959-4962 OF 2011
[Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 5177-5180 of 2010]
Barot Vijaykumar Balakrishna & Ors. ... Appellants
Versus
Modh Vinaykumar Dasrathlal & Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4963 OF 2011
[Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 3584 OF 2010]
Gujarat Public Service Commission & Anr. ... Appellants
Versus
Modh Vinaykumar Dasarathlal & Ors. ... Respondents
J U D G M E N T
AFTAB ALAM, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals arise from a batch of writ petitions filed before the
Gujarat High Court questioning the validity of the appointments of Assistant
2
Public Prosecutor (Class-II) made from the select list prepared on the basis
of the written examination and viva voce and personality test held by the
Gujarat Public Service Commission. The challenge was based on the ground
that the minimum qualifying mark, separately fixed for the viva voce, was
introduced just two or three days before the commencement of the oral tests
though it was not stipulated in the advertisement issued by the Commission
for filling up the posts. According to the writ petitioners (respondents before
this Court), the introduction of the minimum qualifying mark for the viva
voce, after the commencement of the selection process was, illegal and
actuated by bias on the part of the Commission. It led to a number of highly
anomalous results and completely vitiated the selections and the
appointments made on that basis.
3. A learned single judge of the High Court did not accept the writ
petitioners’ contention and dismissed all the writ petitions by judgment and
order dated August 17, 2009, passed in Special Civil Application No.7699 of
2009 (and other analogous cases).
4. Against the judgment of the single judge, the writ petitioners filed
intra-court appeals and a division bench of the High Court allowed the
appeals and set aside the judgment of the single judge. It held that the action
of the Commission in introducing the minimum qualifying mark for the viva
3
voce, in the middle of the selection process, was bad and “the Commission
appears to have guided by legal malafide (sic)”. It, accordingly, quashed the
select list and the appointments made on its basis and directed that a fresh
list be drawn up on the basis of the aggregate of marks obtained by the
candidates in the written test and the viva voce regardless of the minimum
qualifying mark prescribed by the Commission for the viva voce. It directed
the concerned authorities to complete the process within 2 months from the
date of the judgment and till then permitted the appointees to continue to
serve in their respective positions.
5. Against the judgment of the division bench, the appeals are filed (i) by
the candidates (102 in number) who were appointed as Assistant Public
Prosecutors on the basis of the impugned selection made by the Commission
(and who were not parties in the writ petitions, or the intra court appeals
before the court) and (ii) by the Gujarat Public Service Commission.
6. Before proceeding to examine the facts of the case and the rival
contentions of the parties, it may be stated that on behalf of the respondents,
it was accepted that the direction by the division bench of the High Court to
draw up the merit list ignoring the minimum qualifying mark separately
fixed for the viva voce may not be sustainable as that would be contrary to
the statutory rules governing the selection and appointment. The only course
4
left open, therefore, was to scrap the entire selection process and start from
the beginning all over again.
7. Coming to the facts of the case, it is interesting to note how the
process of filling up the posts of Assistant Public Prosecutor in such large
numbers was put into motion. From a limitation petition, for condoning the
inordinate delay of 1695 days in filing a State criminal appeal, it came to
light that there was acute shortage of Assistant Public Prosecutors and as a
result, the functioning of the subordinate criminal courts in the State badly
suffered. The High Court took up the matter and on its initiative, the State
Government sanctioned 180 new posts of Assistant Public Prosecutors. After
due consultation with the Gujarat Public Service Commission and the
concerned authorities of the State Government, the Advocate General of the
State, assured the High Court that all the newly sanctioned posts and the
vacancies existing in the already sanctioned cadre (242 in total) would be
filled up in a time bound manner on the basis of rules especially framed for
the purpose as a one time measure. The statements made by the Advocate
General before the High Court are recorded in the order dated October 08,
2008, passed by a division bench of the High Court in Criminal
Miscellaneous Application No.13937 of 2007 in Criminal Appeal No.487 of
2006. From the order of the High Court it appears that the Advocate General
5
stated before the court that selection would be made on the basis of a written
test followed by oral interviews and minimum qualifying marks would be
fixed for the tests. The relevant passage in the High Court order is as
follows:
“…. Shri Trivedi, learned Advocate General, in consultation
with the Secretary, GPSC, has further submitted that
approximately three times of number of posts to be filled in,
starting from top to bottom, the applicants will be called for
Oral Interviews. However, minimum qualifying marks will be
prescribed and the aforesaid will also be reflected and/or
notified in the Advertisement…..”
8. The High Court passed the order incorporating the statements made
by the Advocate General and directed the concerned authorities to make
appointments on all the available posts of Assistant Public Prosecutor
following the time schedule given in the order.
9. In furtherance of the Advocate General’s assurance given to the court
and in compliance with the court’s direction on that basis, a set of rules
called the Assistant Public Prosecutor, Gujarat General State Service Class II
Recruitment (Examination) Rules, 2008 (for short “the Recruitment Rules”)
were framed by the State Government under the proviso to Article 309 of the
Constitution of India and published in the Gujarat Government Gazette,
Extraordinary, dated, August 6, 2008. Rule 12 of the Recruitment Rules
dealing with the nature of examination provided as under:
6
“Nature of Examination
12 (1) The examination shall be in two parts as shown in
Appendix. Part I shall be written examination and Part II shall
be viva-voce and Personality Test.
(2) The Commission shall fix the qualifying marks to be
obtained by a candidate in Part-I of the examination in
Appendix and shall call only those candidates who fulfil
qualifying standard for Viva-voce and Personality Test.
Provided that candidates belongs to the Scheduled Castes,
Scheduled Tribes or Socially and Educationally Backward
Classes including Nomadic Tribes and Denotified Tribes, may
be summoned for viva-voce and Personality Test by applying
relaxed standard in Part-I of the examination if the Commission
is of the opinion that sufficient number of candidates from
those communities are not likely to be called for viva-voce and
personality test on the basis of the qualifying standard for
general category in order to fill up the vacancies reserved for
such categories.
(3) The commission shall fix the qualifying marks to be
obtained by a candidate in the viva-voce and personality
test.
(4) The candidate shall be required to attend the written part of
the examination and viva-voce and personality test at his own
expense;
(5) If the candidate, who is qualified for the viva-voce and
personality test, fails to attend the viva-voce and personality
test, shall not be eligible for selection.”
(emphasis added)
10. Rule 14 dealt with the result of the examination and in sub-rule (1)
provided as follows:
“Result of Examination
14(1) After two stage of the examination are over, the
commission shall prepare the result arranging the marks of the
candidates seriatim according to merit taking into consideration
the total marks obtained by the candidates as per the
qualifying standards fixed for the written examination and
7
viva-voce and personality test and shall declare a list of
qualified candidates accordingly.”
(emphasis added)
At the end of the Recruitment Rules there was an Appendix in two parts.
Part I contained the details concerning the written examination which would
consist of five papers with an aggregate of 600 marks; part II provided that
there would be a viva voce and personality test of 75 marks.
11. After the Recruitment Rules were framed and notified, the
Commission on October 17, 2008 issued an advertisement inviting
applications for filling up 242 posts of Assistant Public Prosecutor (Class II).
Of the 242 posts available, 122 were to be filled up on open merits and the
remaining was reserved for the different reserved categories. Under the
marginal heading, “Particulars of Examination”, it was stated that the
examination would consist of two parts, i.e., written (objective test) and oral
interview. The question paper of written examination (Part I) would be of
300 marks. In connection with the second part of the examination relating to
the oral interview it was stated as follows:
“PART- II Oral Interview- 30 Marks
The candidate obtains minimum 105 marks in the written
examination i.e. as decided by the Commission, and the
candidate who fulfils the educations qualifications, age,
experience, etc., as mentioned in the advertisement shall be
called for the oral interview in exact numbers and there shall be
8
30 marks for the oral interview. The final result of this
examination shall be published as per the recruitment rules.
The examination is of objective aptitude type, the
provision of re-checking is not adopted. The final result of the
examination shall be furnished on the basis of the total marks
obtained in written as well as oral examination/interview….
12. Two things are to be seen from the advertisement. One, though in the
Recruitment Rules, 600 marks were allotted for the written examination and
75 for the viva voce, in the advertisement the written examination was given
300 and viva voce 30 marks. The second, though the minimum qualifying
mark of 105 out of 300 was fixed for the written examination, no qualifying
mark was fixed separately for the viva voce as required by rule 12 (3) of the
Recruitment Rules. Nevertheless, there was a broad and general stipulation
that, “the final result of this examination shall be published as per the
recruitment rules”.
13. The first discrepancy in regard to the allotment of marks to the written
and oral tests respectively, though not quite vital, was rectified by the
notification dated October 24, 2008, issued by the State Government, under
the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. By this notification, rule 19
was added at the end of the Recruitment Rules which reads as under:
“19. Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, the
competitive examination, held by the Commission pursuant to
the advertisement issued during the year 2008 for the
recruitment to the post specified in rule 3, shall be the multiple
9
choice objective type written examination for 300 marks from
the subjects mentioned in Papers I, II, III, IV and V in Part I of
the Appendix,
Provided that
(i) For papers I and II of the Gujarati and English in Part I of
the Appendix respectively except grammar, all other
topics be deemed as excluded.
(ii) In Part II Viva-voce and Personality Test, the maximum
of 75 marks, shall be read as 30 marks and
(iii) The provisions of rules 12,13,14 and 16 shall apply
mutatis mutandis to such competitive examination”
(emphasis added)
14. The written test was held by the Commission on January 11, 2009 and
its result was published on March 20, 2009 by giving out the roll numbers
(and not the names) of the qualifying candidates. Approximately 5,550
candidates sat for the written examination out of which 790 candidates were
short-listed for being called for the oral interview. After the publication of
the result of the written test the marks obtained by the short-listed candidates
were kept in a sealed cover.
15. At this stage, while preparations were underway for holding the viva
voce of the short-listed candidates, in the meeting held on April 22, 2009, it
was decided that in terms of rule 12(3) of the Recruitment Rules, the
Commission was required to decide the minimum qualifying marks for the
viva voce. Accordingly, on April 23, 2009, the Secretary to the Commission
submitted the proposal together with a copy of the Rules for order of the
Commission and on the same day the Commission took the decision fixing
10
10 out of 30 as the minimum qualifying mark for the viva voce. The
proceedings of the Commission dated April 23, 2009 read as follows:
“The Commission has taken following decision after
discussion.
The Commission shall decide qualifying marks to be
obtained by the candidate in interview under rule 12(3) of
Recruitment (Examination) Rules (Page No.5/C) for this post.
Accordingly, the Commission is supposed to decide minimum
qualifying marks for considering the candidate successful, in
interview. Hence, after careful consideration the Commission
decides that to get out of the maximum 30 marks of the
interview, 10 marks as minimum qualifying marks.
The intimation of this decision may be given in time, to
every candidate before they appear in interview. For this
purpose the Commission gives its approval for procedure to be
followed as per suggestion made in paragraph No.3 shown
against- on previous page. Further, this decision may be
displayed on notice board in such a proper way that all the
concerned persons may get intimated. It may please be noted
that it may get published tomorrow.
Sd/- Member Sd/- Chairman
[Shree Variya] (Shree Bhavsar]
23.4.09 23.4.09
Sd/- Secretary
23.4.09
J.S./D.S.
Sd/- (Jt.Secretary)
24.4.09
The details to be displayed on Notice board as well as
taken in to register in consonance with the above decision is
submitted for approval.
11
1. Following details may be displayed on notice board.
As per rule 12(3), the Commission has decided the
minimum qualifying 10 marks out of 30, for the candidate
appearing in interview (Viva-Voce) of Assistant Public
Prosecutor Class-II. The candidate getting less marks than the
this may not be eligible for selection. Which may be please
noted.
Make a note in the register as below, in which signatures
of the candidates are being taken at the time of interview.”
16. Here it needs to be clarified that normally the Gujarat Public Service
Commission consists of a Chairperson and four members but at that time the
positions of three members were vacant and only a Chairman and a member
comprised the Commission. Hence, the proceedings are shown to have been
signed by the Chairman and one member.
17. In accordance with the Commission’s direction, the decision fixing 10
out of 30 marks as the minimum qualifying mark for the viva voce was put
up on the notice board. Further, each candidate was individually intimated
and was made to sign a declaration/consent form before going for the oral
test. The consent form bore the following declaration under which the
candidates were required to put their signatures:
“Under recruitment rules 12(3) the commission has
prescribed 10 qualifying marks to be obtained by candidates out
of 30 in viva-voce test for appointment to the post of Assistant
Public Prosecutor (Class -II) and it is to be noted that the
candidates who will secure less than 10 marks will not be
12
eligible for recruitment to the post of Assistant Public
Prosecutor.”
(emphasis added)
18. The forms signed by each of the candidates are on record.
19. The viva voce of all the 790 short listed candidates was held from
April 27, 2009 to July 9, 2009. On July 15, 2009, marks of the written test of
the candidates who were called for interview were taken out of the sealed
cover and on July 16, the Commission declared the final result as per Rule
14(1).
20. In the facts as stated above, we are completely unable to see any
illegality in the selection process much less any bias or malice of any kind.
But on behalf of the writ petitioners-respondents, it is contended that it is a
clear case of bias. It is alleged that in order to bring in its favoured
candidates the Commission found it necessary to exclude a sufficient
number of meritorious candidates by any ruse and the minimum qualifying
mark for viva voce was introduced at the last minute only for that intent and
purpose. The respondents pointed out that the application of the minimum
qualifying mark separately for the viva voce excluded some candidates who
would have been selected only on the strength of their marks in the written
test even though they were given nil mark in the viva voce. The respondents
cited several kinds of figures before the High Court to high light the
13
“anomalies” resulting from the introduction of the minimum qualifying
mark for the viva voce. It was pointed out that 81 out of the 203 selected
candidates had got the minimum qualifying mark in the viva voce, i.e., 10
out of the total of 30; 190 candidates out of 790 called for interview got just
8 or 9 marks in the viva voce and were, thus, excluded from the final select
list; 503 candidates out of the 790 called for interview got less than the
qualifying mark in the viva voce. One or two more examples of a similar
nature were also cited by the respondents. The Division Bench of the High
Court appears to have attached considerable importance to these so called
anomalies and its judgment seems to have been influenced by these results.
21. We are unable to accept or even to follow the allegation based on the
figures as cited above. It is necessary to bear in mind that no objection can
be taken to the fixing of the cut off mark separately for the viva voce as that
is the mandate of the statutory rules governing the recruitment. What alone
can be objected to is the omission to specify the cut off mark for viva voce
in the advertisement and fixing it later on. But we fail to see any connection
between the “anomalies” and the fact that the cut off mark for viva voce was
fixed at a later stage, though before the commencement of the interviews and
with due intimation to all the candidates.
14
22. Further, as noted above the marks obtained by the short listed
candidates in the written test were kept in a sealed cover and those were
taken out only after the oral interview of all the candidates was over. At the
time a candidate appeared for the interview the members of the interview
board had no means to know the mark obtained by him/her in the written
test. In such a situation we don’t see how it could be possible for the
interview board to purposefully exclude a candidate by giving less than the
minimum qualifying mark for the viva voce even though he/she might have
been selected on the basis of the mark obtained in the written test alone.
23. When playing around with numbers one is quite likely to come up
with some figures that might appear unusual and unexpected but that alone
will not make out a case of bias or legal malafide (See the decision by a
bench of four judges of this Court in Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of
Haryana, (1985) 4 SCC 417, paragraph 21). In the facts of the case as noted
above we are satisfied that the examples cited by the respondents do not
show that there was any arbitrariness or play of bias in giving marks to the
candidates in the viva voce or that there was any flaw in the selection
process making it liable to be struck down.
24. Mr. Viswanathan, senior advocate, appearing for the respondents
submitted that the Advocate General had undertaken before the High Court
15
that the qualifying marks for both the written test and the viva voce would
be published in the advertisement. He further submitted that sub-rule (2) of
rule 12 provided for fixing the minimum qualifying mark for the written test
in the same way as sub-rule (3) provided for fixing the minimum qualifying
mark for the viva voce. He argued that the provisions of sub-rules (2) and (3)
of rule 12 could not be read and given effect to differently and when the
minimum qualifying mark for the written test was specified in the
advertisement there was no reason for not indicating the minimum
qualifying mark for the viva voce in the advertisement itself.
25. The grievance of Mr. Viswanathan cannot be said to be wholly
without substance. It is true that the better and the more proper way to give
effect to the provision of rule 12 (3) of the Recruitment Rules was to specify
the minimum qualifying mark for the viva voce also in the advertisement
itself. But that was not done. The question is what would be the
consequence of the omission and was it open to the Commission to rectify
the error by fixing the minimum qualifying mark for the viva voce later on
and giving intimation of its decision to each of the candidates appearing for
the oral interview before the beginning of the test.
26. The Division Bench of the High Court has held that the introduction
of the minimum qualifying mark for the viva voce at the later stage in the
16
selection process was not permissible and it completely vitiated the selection
process. Mr. Viswanathan strongly supports the view taken by the High
Court. In support of its view, the Division Bench of the High Court, has
placed reliance on two decisions of this Court, one in K. Manjusree v. State
of Andhra Pradesh and another, (2008) 3 SCC 512 and the other Hemani
Malhotra v. High Court of Delhi, (2008) 7 SCC 11. Mr. Viswanathan also
cited before us the decision in K. Manjusree and invited our attention
particularly to the following passage in paragraph 33 of the judgment:
“33….. Where the rules do not prescribe any procedure, the
Selection Committee may also prescribe the minimum marks,
as stated above. But if the Selection Committee wants to
prescribe minimum marks for interview, it should do so before
the commencement of selection process. If the Selection
Committee prescribed minimum marks only for the written
examination, before the commencement of selection process, it
cannot either during the selection process or after the selection
process, add an additional requirement that the candidates
should also secure minimum marks in the interview. What we
have found to be illegal is changing the criteria after completion
of the selection process, when the entire selection proceeded on
the basis that there will be no minimum marks for the
interview.”
27. In our view, both the decisions relied upon in support of the
respondents’ case are completely distinguishable and have no application to
the facts of this case. K. Manjusree was a case of selection and appointment
to the posts of District & Sessions Judge (Grade II) in the Andhra Pradesh
Higher Judicial Service. The selection and appointment to the post of
17
District & Sessions Judge was governed by the resolutions of the High Court
and the resolution dated November 30, 2004 decided the method and manner
of selection. It resolved to conduct the written examination for the
candidates for 75 marks and oral examination for 25 marks. It also resolved
that the minimum qualifying marks for the O.C., B.C., S.C. and S.T.
candidates would be as prescribed earlier. Following the written
examination, the qualified candidates were called for interview before a
committee of five judges. After the interview, the select committee of five
judges prepared a merit list on the basis of the aggregate of marks obtained
by each of the candidates in the written test and the oral interview. At that
stage, the select committee did not apply any cut off mark for the viva voce.
The list prepared by the select committee was approved by the
administrative committee and it finally came before the Full Court of the
High Court. The Full Court decided to have the matter reviewed by a
committee of two judges constituted by the Chief Justice of the High Court.
It was at that stage that the committee of two judges decided that there
should have been a minimum qualifying mark for the oral interview as well,
in the same ratio as prescribed for the written test. It, accordingly, decided
that only those candidates who secured the minimum of 12.5 out of 25 (for
the open category), 10 marks (for B.C. candidates), and 8.75 marks (for SC
18
and ST candidates) would be considered as having succeeded in the
interview. The decision of the committee of two judges was approved by the
Full Court and consequently, the earlier list prepared by the select committee
and approved by the administrative committee was revised and the final
recommendation for appointment was made by the High Court on the basis
of the revised merit list. It was in those facts that this Court held that the
introduction of the cut off mark for the viva voce after the oral interviews
were over amounted to changing the rules of the game in mid-play and was
not permissible in law. The passage from paragraph 33 of the judgment
relied upon by the respondents must be understood in the facts of the case.
28. The decision in Hemani Malhotra is equally inapplicable to the facts
of the case. Hemani Malhotra was a case of selection and appointment to the
vacant posts in the Delhi Higher Judicial Service and those appointments too
were governed by the administrative resolutions of the High Court. For
filling up the posts, the Registrar General of the High Court issued an
advertisement that laid down that the minimum qualifying mark in the
written examination would be 55% for general candidates and 50% for
scheduled castes and scheduled tribes candidates. In the advertisement there
was no indication at all about any cut off mark for the oral interview. After
the written examination, no result was published giving out the names or roll
19
numbers of the qualified candidates but the successful candidates were
called to appear for the oral interview individually through letters. After the
date fixed for oral interview was postponed three or four times the selection
committee of the High Court resolved that it was desirable to prescribe a
minimum mark for the viva voce and referred the matter to the Full Court.
The Full Court accepted the suggestion made by the select committee and
resolved that for recruitment to the Delhi Higher Judicial Service from the
Bar the minimum qualifying mark in the viva voce will be 55% for general
candidates and 50% for scheduled castes and scheduled tribes candidates.
After the decision, interviews were held but significantly the candidates
were kept in dark about the decision fixing the cut off mark for the viva
voce. The High Court prepared the select list applying the cut off mark
fixed for viva voce but the candidates who appeared for the oral interviews
still did not know why they were not selected despite getting higher marks.
It was only through applications made under the Right to Information Act
that some of the unselected candidates were able to gather that their non-
selection was on account of their failure to secure the cut off mark in the
viva voce and then the selection was challenged before the Court. It is
evident that the facts of the case in hand are entirely different and the
decision in Hemani Malhotra has no application to this case.
20
29. Mr. Viswanathan also relied upon the decision of this Court in
Ramesh Kumar v. High Court of Delhi and another, (2010) 3 SCC 104.
This decision also has no relevance to the facts of the present case. In
Ramesh Kumar, what this Court said is that for appointment to the judicial
services, in the absence of any contrary provision in the relevant rules
Delhi High Court should not have fixed any minimum qualifying marks for
the viva voce because this Court had accepted Justice Shetty Commission’s
report which had prescribed not to have any cut off mark for interview.
Actually what is said in paragraph 15 of the judgment in Ramesh Kumar
demolishes the case of the respondents:
“15. Thus, the law on the issue can be summarised to the
effect that in case the statutory rules prescribe a particular
mode of selection, it has to be given strict adherence
accordingly. In case, no procedure is prescribed by the rules
and there is no other impediment in law, the competent
authority while laying down the norms for selection may
prescribe for the tests and further specify the minimum
benchmarks for written test as well as for viva voce.
30. Having, thus, made the legal position clear, the judgment in paragraph
16 went on to say:
“16. In the instant case, the Rules do not provide for any
particular procedure/criteria for holding the tests rather it
enables the High Court to prescribe the criteria. This Court in
All India Judges’ Assn. (3) v. Union of India, [(2002) 4 SCC
247], accepted Justice Shetty Commission’s Report in this
regard which had prescribed for not having minimum marks for
21
interview. The Court further explained that to give effect to the
said judgment, the existing statutory rules may be amended.
However, till the amendment is carried out, the vacancies shall
be filled as per the existing statutory rules. A similar view has
been reiterated by this Court while dealing with the
appointment of Judicial Officers in Syed T.A. Naqshbandi v.
State of J&K [(2003) 9 SCC 592] and Malik Mazhar Sultan
(3) v. U.P. Public Service Commission [(2008) 17 SCC 703].
We have also accepted the said settled legal proposition while
deciding the connected cases i.e. Rakhi Ray v. High Court of
Delhi [(2010) 2 SCC 637] vide judgment and order of this date.
It has been clarified in Rakhi Ray that where statutory rules do
not deal with a particular subject/issue, so far as the
appointment of the Judicial Officers is concerned, directions
issued by this Court would have binding effect.”
31. Now coming back to the facts of the case in hand, though the rules
framed under Article 309 of the Constitution governing the selection process
mandated that there would be minimum qualifying marks each for the
written test and the oral interview, the cut off mark for viva voce was not
specified in the advertisement. In view of the omission, there were only two
courses open. One, to carry on with the selection process and to complete it
without fixing any cut off mark for the viva voce and to prepare the select
list on the basis of the aggregate of marks obtained by the candidates in the
written test and the viva voce. That would have been clearly wrong and in
violation of the statutory rule governing the selection. The other course was
to fix the cut off mark for the viva voce and to notify the candidates called
for interview about it. This is the course that the Commission followed.
22
This was in compliance with the rules and it did not cause any prejudice to
any candidate either. We, thus, see no illegality at all in the selection
process.
32. In light of the discussions made above we find that the Division
Bench of the High Court took a wrong view of the matter and its judgment
and order are quite unsustainable. We, accordingly, set aside the impugned
judgment and dismiss all the writ petitions filed by the respondents before
the Gujarat High Court.
33. In the result, the appeals are allowed but with no order as to costs.
…………………………………..J
(AFTAB ALAM)
…………………………………..J
(R.M. LODHA)
New Delhi,
July 5, 2011.