Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/17268/2010 5/ 5 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 17268 of 2010
=========================================================
CHAUDHARY
HITESHBHAI KAMABHAI & 7 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
GOVERNMENT
OF GUJARAT THROUGH SECRETARY & 4 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
RK MISHRA for
Petitioner(s) : 1 - 8.
MR MAULIK G NANAVATI, ASSTT.GOVERNMENT
PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 1,
NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 2
- 3, 5,
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 2 - 3, 5,
MR
DEEPAK P SANCHELA for Respondent(s) : 4,
5
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HON'BLE
SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI
Date
: 29/03/2011
ORAL
ORDER
This
petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been
filed with the following prayers:
“(A) Your
Lordships may be pleased to hold and declare that since the
petitioners have been selected against single post cadre,
accordingly, there cannot be any reservation on single cadre post as
the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in the case of P.G.Institute of
Medical Education and Research Vs. Faculty Association, reported in
AIR 1998 SC 1767 and also the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased
to settle the principle of law that there cannot be any reservation
in respect of single post in the case of State of Karnataka and
others V. K.Govindappa and Anr. reported in (2009)1 SCC p.1 and
accordingly, Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondent
authorities to issue the orders of appointment in respect of single
cadre posts against which the petitioners have been declared to be
selected.
(B) Your
Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to
undertake the process of issuance of the orders of appointment in
favour of the petitioners and complete the same without any more
delay.
(C) This
Hon’ble Court be pleased to pass such other and further order/s as
deemed fit, just and proper by this Hon’ble Court.”
The
case of the petitioners is, that several single cadre posts were
advertised vide Advertisement dated 28.07.2010 by Radhanpur
Nagarpalika. The petitioners applied for the posts in question and
after interviews, the petitioners were communicated that they have
been selected by the Selection Committee. According to the
petitioners, in view of the settled legal position, there could have
been no reservation in a single cadre posts.
Upon
notice being issued, the respondents have appeared and filed their
affidavits-in-reply. In the affidavit-in-reply filed by the State
Government, it has been categorically stated that in view of the
decision of the Supreme Court in the case of P.G. Institute
of Medical Education and Research v. Faculty Association reported in
AIR 1998 SC 1767, there can be no reservation, until there is
plurality of posts in a cadre and that if there is one post within a
cadre, then the same cannot be set apart for a reserved category
candidate. It is further stated that by Government Resolution dated
16.12.2004, issued by the General Administration Department, it has
been clarified that no reservation is to be provided where there is
only one post in the cadre. It is further stated that the Government
has sanctioned 113 posts on the establishment of Radhanpur
Nagarpalika, some of which are single isolated posts within a cadre
and in respect of those posts, the policy of reservation, either
directly or by operation of device of rotation of Roster, will not be
made applicable.
In
the further affidavit filed by the Nagarpalika, the stand taken by
the State Government has been reiterated by stating that there can be
no reservation until there is plurality of the post in a cadre and if
there is a single post within a cadre, the same cannot be said to be
a part of reservation.
Heard
the learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the
documents on record.
It
is clarified by Mr.Deepak Sanchela, learned advocate for respondents
Nos.4 and 5, that in the Advertisement in question, single posts have
been advertised and no reservation has been provided. In view of the
affidavits-in-reply filed by the State Government and the respondent
– Nagarpalika, no reservation shall be applied to single cadre
posts.
Mr.R.K.Mishra,
learned advocate for the petitioners, states that in view of the
affidavits-in-reply filed by the State Government and the respondent
– Nagarpalika, the grievances of the petitioners have been
redressed and nothing further remains to be adjudicated, and the
respondent – Nagarpalika may be directed to issue appointment
orders to the petitioners, and the petition may be disposed of as
having become infructuous.
In
view of the respective statements made by the learned advocates for
the petitioners and respondent – Nagarpalika, and the
affidavits filed by them, the following order is passed:-
The
petition is disposed of as having become infructuous, with the
stipulation that the respondent-authorities shall take consequential
action, strictly in accordance with law.
It
is made clear that while passing this order, the Court has not
entered into the merits of the case.
Notice
is discharged. There shall be no orders as to costs.
(Smt.Abhilasha
Kumari, J.)
(sunil)
Top