{"id":157616,"date":"2010-05-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-05-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jitendra-vs-union-on-6-may-2010"},"modified":"2015-12-05T11:41:29","modified_gmt":"2015-12-05T06:11:29","slug":"jitendra-vs-union-on-6-may-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jitendra-vs-union-on-6-may-2010","title":{"rendered":"Jitendra vs Union on 6 May, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Jitendra vs Union on 6 May, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Ks Jhaveri,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/5700\/2010\t 16\/ 16\tORDER \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 5700 of 2010\n \n\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\nJITENDRA\nNARENDRABHAI SURTI - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nUNION\nOF INDIA & 3 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance : \nMR\nRAMNANDAN SINGH for\nPetitioner(s) : 1, \nNone for Respondent(s) : 1 -\n4. \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 06\/05\/2010 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n
1.\tThe
\npetitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the public notice dated
\n26th November 2007 published by respondent Corporation in
\nlocal daily edition of Gujarat Samachar cancelling the select list
\nqua all those candidates who have not been offered appointment
\nincluding the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tThe
\nrespondent Corporation had invited applications for recruitment to
\nthe post of  Assistant  in Class III category by issuing
\nadvertisement in local daily Gujarat Samachar on 13th
\nOctober 1993. The petitioner has applied, and undergone the written
\ntest and interview and  his name reflected at serial no.191 (SC) in
\nthe select list. In pursuance of the same, some of the candidates
\nwere  given appointment. According to the petitioner he was given
\nassurance that as and when the vacancy arises, the petitioner would
\nalso be absorbed in service. In the meantime the candidates,
\nincluding the petitioner, who were in the select list were given
\ntemporary appointments.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tSince
\nthere was no permanent appointment, the petitioner preferred Special
\nCivil Application No.20794 of 2005 and 13 other similar petitions
\nwere also filed. In one of the petitions the respondent Corporation
\nfiled an affidavit stating that  all the petitioners therein would be
\ngiven permanent appointment as soon as the ban on recruitment was
\nlifted. Accordingly this court disposed of the said petitions by
\ncommon order dated 5th April 2006. According to the
\npetitioner his petition being Special Civil Application No.20794 of
\n2005 got separated and he was under the impression that the said
\npetition was disposed of along with other petitions. According to the
\npetitioner, as per Recruitment Instructions 1993, the panel list has
\nno validity period and therefore the said panel will operate till
\nlast candidate is selected.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tIn
\nthe year 2007 the respondent Corporation amended the Recruitment
\nInstructions 1993 for Class III and IV employees. According to new
\nrule, the panel will be having life of one year and it could be
\nextended for maximum period of two years. Under the circumstances a
\ngroup of petitions came to be filed  before this Court against
\nscraping the panel. It appears that the petitioner was not a party to
\nthe said petitions. This Court by common order dated 12th
\nMay 2008 directed that those who had worked on temporary basis would
\nbe given appointment order. Against the said order of learned Single
\nJudge, the respondent Corporation filed Letters Patent Appeals. The
\nDivision Bench dismissed four appeals of the Corporation which were
\nfiled against some of the candidates from Vadodara Division who were
\nsenior to the candidates in whose favour undertaking was given in
\n2005 and appointments were made in 2007.  However, the Division Bench
\nallowed all other appeals holding that it was against the public
\npolicy.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tThe
\nrespondent Corporation filed four Special Leave Petitions (Civil)
\nbeing SLP Nos.21215-21218 of2009 which came to be dismissed by order
\ndated 9th October 2009.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tIn
\nthe meantime, those candidates against whom the respondent
\nCorporation succeeded before the Division Bench had approached the
\nSupreme Court by filing Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.11449 of
\n2009 and other allied matters. When those petitions came up for
\nhearing on 26th February 2010 the  respondent Corporation
\ngave an undertaking that all the petitioners who had filed SLPs
\nbefore the Supreme Court and those who have worked on temporary
\nbasis, would be given regular appointment as and when the vacancies
\narise.\n<\/p>\n
7.\tHowever,
\nthe case of the petitioner has not been considered  and therefore the
\npresent petition has been filed.\n<\/p>\n
8.\tHeard
\nthe learned Advocate for the petitioner at length and perused the
\nrelevant papers. At this stage it would be advantageous to look into
\nthe orders passed by this Court. This Court in Special Civil
\nApplication No.20783 of 2005 and allied matters passed the following
\norder on 5th April 2006:\n<\/p>\n
 \tThere
\nwas  limited consensus to  the extent that the judgment dated
\n19.11.2003 of the
\n Division Bench of Bombay High Court (AS) in Writ Petition No.1224 of
\n1999 and other allied Writ Petitions squarely covered the controversy
\narising in the present set of  petitions.  It was submitted by the
\nrespondents herein  before the Division Bench of the Bombay High
\nCourt that the list was open and the candidature of the petitioners
\nwho were already in the employment of the Corporation would be
\nconsidered for regularization or permenancy as and when regular
\nvacancy arose and ban on recruitment was lifted.  In view of that,
\nthe Court saw no reason to issue any further direction since the
\nposts of the petitioners before that Court had been secured.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tIn
\nthe facts of the present cases, by filing an affidavit of Mr Ashok P
\nMohile, Divisional Manager (L & HPF), it is stated:  As and
\nwhen the suspension is lifted and recruitment is permitted,
\nrecruitment will be made from the panel-list in question; at present,
\nno appointment can be made from
\nthe panel-list due to imposition of the ban. It is submitted that the
\npanel list in question remains valid as long as the same is
\nexhausted.   Since the petitioners, are admittedly, on the
\npanel-list of selected candidates and direction to issue appointment
\norder is sought by the petitioners and the statement regarding ban at
\npresent on the recruitment  and to make appointment from the panel
\nlist in question, as long as it is exhausted, is made, the petitions
\nare not pressed for any further relief, in view of the above stand of
\nthe respondent.  Accordingly, the petitions are disposed of as not
\npressed for any further relief after the above statements being
\nrecorded. Notice is discharged with no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
9.\tThe
\naforesaid order was carried before Division Bench by way of filing
\nLetters Patent Appeal No.1003 of 2008 and allied matters. The said
\nLPAs came to be dismissed vide order dated , which reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
This group of Appeals preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent
\narise from the common judgment and order dated 12th
\nMay,2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in above Special Civil
\nApplications.\n<\/p>\n
With the consent of the learned advocates, the Appeals are heard
\ntoday and are decided by this common judgment.\n<\/p>\n
\t The
\nappellants in these Appeals are the Life Insurance Corporation of
\nIndia (hereinafter referred to as  the Corporation ),
\nits officers and the Union of India. The respondents in these Appeals
\nare the candidates who were selected for  appointment to the post of
\nAssistant in Class-III service in the Corporation.\n<\/p>\n
\t The
\nCorporation, under its Circular dated 25th February,1993,
\nissued Recruitment (of Class-III and Class-IV Staff) Instructions
\n(hereinafter referred to as  the aforesaid Instructions ).  Under
\nthe aforesaid Instructions, the offices were, inter alia, required to
\ndraw a panel of selected candidates; the candidates would be offered
\nappointment against the immediately available permanent vacancies in
\norder of ranking; the remaining persons would be absorbed when the
\nvacancies arose. The offices were also instructed to utilise the
\npanelled candidates for appointment on temporary basis as and when
\nneed arose. It further provided that the number of candidates to be
\nempanelled would be twice  the number of permanent vacancies in the
\nyear; in the subsequent year, the number of persons to be added in
\nthe panel would be equal to the number of vacancies less the number
\nof persons remaining on the panel. Thus, under the said Instructions,
\nthe panel of the candidates prepared after the date of the aforesaid
\nInstructions was intended to be perennial and all the candidates
\nempanelled were assured appointment in order of ranking on permanent
\nvacancies as and when available.\n<\/p>\n
Pursuant to the said Instructions, recruitment procedure for
\nappointment to class-III posts was initiated in the year 1993. After
\nholding competitive test and oral interview, etc. a panel of
\nsuccessful candidates was published on 7th August,1995.
\nThe said panel was operated regularly  until the year 1998-1999.
\nSince the year 1999, no regular appointment was made on any permanent
\nvacancy. However, some candidates were appointed on temporary basis
\nas and when required. The respondents before us are some of such
\ncandidates who were empanelled on 7th August,1995; who are
\nnot regularly appointed on permanent vacancies  but, who were given
\ntemporary appointment as and when required. Indisputably, the said
\npanel prepared on 7th August,1995 was not augmented in the
\nsubsequent years by holding recruitment procedure every year, as
\nenvisaged by the aforesaid Instructions. The said panel was not
\noperated since year the 1999 nor was it exhausted as provided in the
\naforesaid Instructions. Instead, the Corporation decided to cancel
\nthe said panel and gave public notice to that effect on 26th
\nNovember, 2007.\n<\/p>\n
Feeling aggrieved, the respondents approached this Court by filing
\nabove Special Civil Applications under Article 226 of the
\nConstitution. Pursuant to their empanelment in the panel of 7th
\nAugust,1995, the respondents claimed a right to regular appointment
\non permanent vacancies. The respondents also claimed that they had
\nbeen given temporary appointments. Thus, master and servant
\nrelationship between the Corporation and the respondents had come
\ninto existence. The Corporation was, therefore, duty bound to offer
\nregular appointment to the respondents on permanent vacancies.\n<\/p>\n
\t The
\npetitions were contested by the Corporation. The above referred facts
\nwere not contested by the Corporation. The Corporation, however,
\nurged that on 23rd November,2007, the Corporation had
\namended the aforesaid Instructions. The amended Clauses 5 and 15
\nprovided, inter alia, that,  Recruitment shall be only against
\nthe vacancies in the sanctioned posts.  It further provided
\nthat,  The validity period of the ranking list shall be maximum
\nof two years from the date of its publication or till the next
\nrecruitment notification, whichever is earlier.  Thus, by the
\namended Instructions, the length of the panel has been curtailed to
\nthe existing vacancies and the life of the panel has been curtailed
\nto a maximum period of two years from the date of its publication.
\nAccording to the Corporation, the said amended Instructions apply to
\nthe existing panels also. In view of the said Instructions, the
\nexisting panels, which were more than two years old including the
\npanel dated 7th August,1995, were scrapped. The
\nCorporation has also placed on record the details of the operation of
\nthe panel dated 7th August,1995 in each of its six
\nDivisions. As stated in the counter-affidavit and accompanying
\ndocuments, the said panel was operated to make regular appointment on
\npermanent vacancies strictly in order of ranking.  Though the
\nrespondents and some others were appointed temporarily; on the date
\nof the cancellation of the panel none of the respondents was in the
\nservice of the Corporation even on temporary basis. No candidate
\nappointed on temporary basis was regularized in service or was
\nappointed on permanent basis. However, in respect of Vadodara
\nDivision, some of the temporarily appointed candidates had approached
\nthis Court in the year 2005. In the said proceeding, the Corporation,
\ninconsonance with the aforesaid Instructions, made a statement on
\noath that,  The list is open and the candidature of the
\npetitioners, who are already in the employment of the Corporation
\nwill be considered for regularization or permanency as and when
\nregular vacancy arises and ban on recruitment is lifted.  It
\nwas also submitted before the Court that  the panel list in
\nquestion remains valid as long as the same is exhausted . Besides,
\nthere were similar litigations pending before the Bombay High Court.
\nA similar statement was made before the Bombay High Court also.\n<\/p>\n
\t  It
\nis admitted before us that pursuant to the above referred statement
\nmade before the Court, though on the date of statement no candidate
\ntemporarily appointed was in service, the Corporation did offer
\nregular appointment to the writ petitioners before the Court on
\npermanent vacancies. Out of 10 such candidates, 7 candidates have
\naccepted the appointment and are working as such.\n<\/p>\n
While deciding the writ petitions, the learned Single Judge relied
\nupon the above referred statement. It was also noted that some of the
\ncandidates (the petitioners before the Court in 2005 proceedings) who
\nwere temporarily appointed were given regular appointment on
\npermanent vacancies. The learned Single Judge treated the above
\nreferred statement made by the Corporation as an undertaking to the
\nCourt and observed that  such undertaking gives rise to an
\nexpectation which partakes the character of legitimate expectation.
\nThe learned Single Judge also noted that those candidates who had
\napproached the Court earlier  have been given permanent appointment
\nirrespective of their ranking in the panel, which created
\ndiscrimination. In view of the above referred observations made by
\nthe learned Single Judge, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ
\npetitions in respect of the respondents, who were temporarily
\nappointed at one time or the other. The learned Single Judge has held
\nthat,  this kind of policy is required to be deprecated and
\nin the interest of justice all those who were ever appointed from the
\npanel on temporary basis at some point of time deserve to be
\nconsidered  for appointment. To maintain fairness, the panelists, who
\nwere ever appointed were required to be put at par with
\nthose who were regularized notwithstanding their term being small.
\n In respect of the other panelists, the learned Single Judge observed
\nthat,  …This Court feels that it may not be necessary to
\nexamine whether the amendment was retrospective or prospective.
\nSuffice it to say that those who were appointed for sometime will be
\nregularized and those who were never appointed even for short period
\ncould be excluded.  In above view of the matter the learned
\nSingle Judge issued direction that,  In view of the above,
\nthis Court finally orders that all those who were ever taken in
\nservice at any point of time before the list was scrapped will be
\noffered appointment by the respondents. This is because they have
\nundertaken before the Court to that effect. Those who were never
\nappointed for any period, will be left out. They form a distinct
\ngroup. Those, whose juniors have been appointed, will have to be
\ntreated separately and offered appointment.\n<\/p>\n
\tFeeling
\naggrieved, the Corporation has preferred the present set of Appeals.
\nLearned advocate Mr.Clerk has appeared for the Corporation. He has
\ntaken us through the record. He has submitted that the aforesaid
\nInstructions are issued under Regulation 4 of the Life Insurance
\nCorporation of India  (Staff) Regulations,1960 framed under the power
\nconferred by Section 49 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act,1956.
\nHe has submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has, in the
\nmatter of Life Insurance Corporation of India V\/s. Mrs.Asha
\nRamchandra Ambekar [AIR 1994 SC 2148], held that the
\nInstructions issued under the above referred Regulation 4 are
\nstatutory in nature. He has submitted that the Instructions of the
\nyear 2007 are statutory in nature and are binding to the Corporation.
\nBy amendment made in the year 2007, the life of a panel prepared
\nunder the aforesaid Instructions has been curtailed to a maximum
\nperiod of two years. Evidently, the said Instructions applied to all
\nexisting panels which were older than two years. They were required
\nto be cancelled. Accordingly, the Corporation had decided to cancel
\nall the panels which were in operation for more than two years. The
\ndecision was published by the impugned public notice dated 26th
\nNovember, 2007.\n<\/p>\n
\tLearned
\nadvocate Mr.Singh has appeared for the respondents in these Appeals.
\nHe has contested the Appeals. Mr. Singh has supported the judgment of
\nthe learned Single Judge. He has submitted that the amended
\nInstructions of the year 2007 do not make them applicable
\nretrospectively either by an express provision or by necessary
\nimplication. He has submitted that the amended Instructions should
\napply to the panels that may be prepared after the date of the
\namended Instructions. The said amendment does not envisage
\ncurtailment of the existing panels. He has further submitted that the
\nCorporation has admittedly made certain regular appointments by
\noperating the said panel. Some of the candidates, who were earlier
\nappointed on temporary service have been given regular appointments.
\nThe respondents are the candidates who are similarly situated. Each
\nrespondent had earlier been given temporary appointment. Some have
\nserved for more than one year. Learned Single Judge has rightly held
\nthat the Corporation had acted arbitrarily in making appointment on
\nregular basis. Learned Single Judge has rightly issued the impugned
\ndirections to mitigate the discriminatory treatment meted out to the
\nrespondents. In support of his arguments Mr. Singh has relied upon
\nthe judgments delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters
\nof Gunaru Karan and others V\/s.\n<\/p>\n
Revenue Divisional Commissioner and others [1991
\nSupp (2) SCC 291] and of Union of
\nIndia and others V\/s. Ishwar Singh Khatri and others [1992
\nSupp. (3) SCC 84].\n<\/p>\n
\tWe
\nare unable to agree with Mr. Singh. We are of the opinion that the
\nlearned Single Judge has erred in granting  relief to the respondents
\nwhich too creates discrimination amongst the persons empanelled on
\nthe basis of temporary appointment offered to a few persons,
\nadmittedly, not in the order of merit.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe
\nabove referred amendment made in the year 2007 is, neither by express
\nterms nor by necessary implication, made  retrospective or
\nretroactive. The intention to apply the said amendment to the
\nexisting panels is not spelt out in the said amendment. But in our
\nview, operation of the panel\/ select list\/ merit list prepared for
\nappointment to public employment cannot be operated for inordinately
\nlong period. Such operation itself is arbitrary and discriminatory.
\nThat deprives the candidates who become eligible in later years from
\ncompeting for appointment on such posts. In the present case, the
\nrecruitment procedure had commenced as far back as in the year 1993.
\nThe panel\/ select list\/ merit list was prepared in the year 1995 and
\nwas operated until the year 1999. Now, it is sought to be operated
\nafter 13 years. The persons on the said panel have obviously become
\nage barred for public employment or for the appointment to the post
\nin question. The persons who have become eligible for public
\nemployment since the year 1995 are deprived of the opportunity to
\ncompete for appointment to such post. It is well settled rule of law
\nthat the merit list prepared pursuant to a selection procedure for
\nappointment to public employment can be operated for the posts
\nadvertised or at the most, if the administrative exigency requires,
\nfor the posts which become vacant within six months or a year. That
\nis the view expressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of
\nState of Rajasthan and others V\/s. Jagdish Chopra [2007(8) SCC
\n161] relied upon by Mr.Clerk.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tIn
\nno circumstance a panel or merit list prepared 13 years ago can be
\npermitted to be operated. More particularly, in the present case the
\nCorporation has on its own decided to cancel the existing panels\/
\nmerit lits. The decision of the Corporation in our view is in
\nconsonance with the above referred public policy. No exception is
\nrequired to be made.\n<\/p>\n
\tAs
\nto the Vadodara Division, we have noticed that some seven persons
\nhave been made permanent from the existing panel irrespective of
\ntheir rank. The principle of fair play requires that those persons
\nwho were above such persons in the merit list \/ panel should get an
\nopportunity of appointment. Such persons need not be discriminated
\nonly because they did not approach the Court of law or because they
\ndid not secure temporary appointment during the operation of the
\nmerit list.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe
\nare informed that the petitioners in above Special Civil Application
\nNos.2681 of 2008; 2691 of 2008; 2695 of 2008; 2708 of 2008; 2709 of
\n2008, 2710 of 2008 and 4502 of 2008 are the persons empaneled on the
\npanel for Vadodara Division prepared on 7th August,1995.
\nThey specifically challenged the appointment of the above referred
\nten persons out of order merely because they had approached the Court
\nearlier in the year 2005. We do find justification in the grievance
\nmade by those petitioners. As observed hereinabove, though the
\nCorporation was not directed to appoint any specific person and
\nthough the Corporation was required to operate the panel in order of
\nmerit, the Corporation offered employment to ten persons and that too
\nnot in order of merit.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe
\nCorporation has filed further affidavit which indicates that in
\ngeneral category, candidates between Serial No.162 and 179 were
\noffered appointment in the year 2007, ignoring claim of 12 persons,
\nwho were above the persons appointed. Similarly in the category of
\nphysically handicapped persons 2 candidates were left out and in the
\ncategory of scheduled tribe 1 person was left out. We, therefore,
\nhold that the above referred 12, 2  and  1 persons in the general,
\nphysically handicapped and scheduled tribe categories respectively
\nare required to be offered regular employment in permanent vacancy.
\nWe, therefore, direct accordingly. In absence of available vacancies
\nin Vadodara Division, they may be accommodated in any other Division
\nwhere vacancy is available. On their appointment, they will be
\naccorded seniority according to their rank in the panel. Except the
\nseniority, they will take other service benefits from the date of
\ntheir appointment.\n<\/p>\n
\tMr.Clerk
\nhas submitted that of the above referred seven writ petitioners only
\nfour in the general category fared above the ten persons who have
\nbeen offered regular appointment. The petitioners in Special Civil
\nApplication Nos.2691 and 2695 of 2008 are schedule tribe candidates.
\nBoth these petitioners fare below the schedule tribe candidates, who
\nhave been offered regular appointment. Thus, in the submission of
\nMr.Clerk, if any relief is required to be granted to the panelists in
\nVadodara Division, it is the petitioner in Special Civil Application
\nNos.2681, 2709, 2710 and 4502 of 2008, who is entitled to such
\nrelief.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn
\nview of the above direction, Appeal Nos.1076 and 1080 to 1082 of 2008
\nare dismissed.  The judgment and order passed by the learned Single
\nJudge in aforesaid four Special Civil Application Nos. 2681, 2709,
\n2710 and 4502 of 2008 is confirmed.\n<\/p>\n
\tFor
\nthe reasons stated in this judgement, rest of the Appeals are
\nallowed. The judgement and order passed by the learned Single Judge
\nin corresponding writ petitions is quashed and set aside. The said
\nwrit petitions stand dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\tCivil
\nApplications stand disposed of. The parties will bear their own cost.\n<\/p>\n
10.\tAgainst
\nthe aforesaid order Special Leave Petition  Nos.21215-21218 of 2009
\nwere filed wherein the Apex Court passed the following order:\n<\/p>\n
 Learned counsel appearing
\nfor the Life Insurance Corporation of India submits that, as a
\nspecial case, without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner LIC,
\nsuch of the petitioners, who had worked on temporary basis would be
\ngiven regular appointments against regular vacancies, as and when
\nthey arise. This shall not be treated as a precedent.\n<\/p>\n
The  Special Leave Petitions
\nare disposed of accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
11.\tThe
\ncontention of the petitioner is that though the case of other
\ncandidates were considered, his case was not considered and he is
\nentitled to get appointment on par with other candidates.\n<\/p>\n
12.\tIn
\nthis connection it is required to be noted that along with others the
\npetitioner had also filed petition being Special Civil Application
\nNo.20794 of 2005. Apparently the petitioner has not pursued the said
\npetition in spite of the fact that other cognate matters have been
\ndisposed of. In fact the cognate matters were disposed of on the
\nbasis of the undertaking given by the respondent Corporation that as
\nsoon as the ban on recruitment was lifted, appointment would be made.\n<\/p>\n
13.\tIn
\nthe meanwhile  the Recruitment Instructions 1993 were amended and
\naccording to new rule the panel list will be operated for a period of
\none year and it could be extended for maximum period of two years.
\nThe petitioner has not challenged these amended rules. In view of
\nscraping of the penal by amended rules, certain candidates approached
\nthis Court and this Court held that  those who were appointed for
\nsome time will be regularized and those who were never appointed even
\nfor short period could be excluded. Again the petitioner was not a
\nparty to this group of petitions. The Corporation carried the matter
\nin appeal and the Division Bench dismissed  four appeals of the
\nCorporation which were filed against some of the candidates from
\nVadodara Division who were senior to the candidates in whose favour
\nundertaking was given in 2005 and appointments were made in 2007.
\nHowever, the Division Bench dismissed the other appeals holding that
\nsuch direction was against public policy. Therefore it was settled
\nthat no appointment could be made except the candidates from Vadodara
\nDivision. The Corporation filed Special Leave Petitions against the
\norder of Division Bench  dismissing four appeals whichalso came to be
\ndismissed.\n<\/p>\n
14.\tIn
\nthe meantime the candidates against whom the respondent Corporation
\nsucceeded before the Division Bench had approached the Supreme Court
\nby filing Special Leave Petitions. In those petitions the respondent
\nCorporation had given undertaking that all the petitioners who had
\nfiled  SLPs before the Supreme Court and those who have worked on
\ntemporary basis would be given regular appointment as and when
\nvacancies arise.\n<\/p>\n
15.\tThe
\nspecific undertaking was that the petitioners who had worked on
\ntemporary basis would be given regular appointments against regular
\nvacancies as and when they arise. Admittedly the petitioner was not
\nparty to any of the aforesaid proceedings. It appears that the
\npetitioner was watching all the above proceedings and when the
\nundertaking was given by the Corporation before the Supreme Court in
\nrespect of those petitioners, the petitioner has tried to take
\nadvantage of the undertaking and earlier proceedings wherein the
\npetitioner was not a party at all. It is also required to be noted
\nthat the petitioner has not pursued his own petition which is still
\npending. The petitioner is not a vigilant litigant and therefore he
\ncannot claim any equity relief from this Court. Apart from that the
\nHon’ble Supreme Court has made it very clear that the order dated
\n26th February 2010 shall not be treated as a precedent.
\nTherefore also the petitioner cannot claim any relief on the basis of
\nthe said order. The present petition has been filed while the earlier
\npetition of the petitioner is still pending before this Court.\n<\/p>\n
16.\tIn
\nthe premises aforesaid, I find that this petition is misconceived and
\nis accordingly rejected with costs quantified at Rs.2500\/- which
\nshall be paid to  Gujarat High Court Legal Aid Committee.\n<\/p>\n
[K.S.Jhaveri,J.]<\/p>\n
*Himansu<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Jitendra vs Union on 6 May, 2010 Author: Ks Jhaveri,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/5700\/2010 16\/ 16 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5700 of 2010 ========================================================= JITENDRA NARENDRABHAI SURTI – Petitioner(s) Versus UNION OF INDIA & 3 – Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-157616","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nJitendra vs Union on 6 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jitendra-vs-union-on-6-may-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Jitendra vs Union on 6 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jitendra-vs-union-on-6-may-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-05-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-12-05T06:11:29+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"22 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jitendra-vs-union-on-6-may-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jitendra-vs-union-on-6-may-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Jitendra vs Union on 6 May, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-05-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-05T06:11:29+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jitendra-vs-union-on-6-may-2010\"},\"wordCount\":4275,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jitendra-vs-union-on-6-may-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jitendra-vs-union-on-6-may-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jitendra-vs-union-on-6-may-2010\",\"name\":\"Jitendra vs Union on 6 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-05-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-05T06:11:29+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jitendra-vs-union-on-6-may-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jitendra-vs-union-on-6-may-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jitendra-vs-union-on-6-may-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jitendra vs Union on 6 May, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Jitendra vs Union on 6 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jitendra-vs-union-on-6-may-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Jitendra vs Union on 6 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jitendra-vs-union-on-6-may-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-05-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-12-05T06:11:29+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"22 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jitendra-vs-union-on-6-may-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jitendra-vs-union-on-6-may-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Jitendra vs Union on 6 May, 2010","datePublished":"2010-05-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-05T06:11:29+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jitendra-vs-union-on-6-may-2010"},"wordCount":4275,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jitendra-vs-union-on-6-may-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jitendra-vs-union-on-6-may-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jitendra-vs-union-on-6-may-2010","name":"Jitendra vs Union on 6 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-05-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-05T06:11:29+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jitendra-vs-union-on-6-may-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jitendra-vs-union-on-6-may-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jitendra-vs-union-on-6-may-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jitendra vs Union on 6 May, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/157616","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=157616"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/157616\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=157616"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=157616"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=157616"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}