{"id":167960,"date":"2010-03-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-03-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-vs-state-on-9-march-2010-2"},"modified":"2015-12-14T15:27:08","modified_gmt":"2015-12-14T09:57:08","slug":"patel-vs-state-on-9-march-2010-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-vs-state-on-9-march-2010-2","title":{"rendered":"Patel vs State on 9 March, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Patel vs State on 9 March, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: R.M.Doshit,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice Shah,&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\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nLPA\/173\/2010\t 1\/ 19\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nLETTERS\nPATENT APPEAL No. 173 of 2010\n \n\nIn\n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 316 of 2010\n \n\nwith\n \n\nCIVIL\nAPPLICATION No. 1266 of 2010\n \n\nin\n \n\nLETTERS\nPATENT APPEAL No. 173 of 2010\n \n\nWith\n \n\nLETTERS\nPATENT APPEAL No. 175 of 2010\n \n\nIn\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No.1292 of 2010\n \n\nwith\n \n\nCIVIL\nAPPLICATION No. 1269\/1292 of 2010\n \n\nin\n \n\nLETTERS\nPATENT APPEAL No. 175 of 2010\n \n\nWith\n \n\nLETTERS\nPATENT APPEAL No. 373 of 2010\n \n\nin\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No.1392 of 2010\n \n\nwith\n \n\nCIVIL\nAPPLICATION No. 2254 of 2010\n \n\nIn\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 1292 of 2010\n \n\nWith\n \n\nLETTERS\nPATENT APPEAL No. 153 of 2010\n \n\nIn\n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 293 of 2010\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nCIVIL\nAPPLICATION No. 981 of 2010 \n\n \n\nin\n \n\nLETERS\nPATENT APPEAL No. 153 of 2010\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nLETTERS\nPATENT APPEAL No. 241 of 2010\n \n\nIn\n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 293 of 2010\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nLETTERS\nPATENT APPEAL No. 251 of 2010\n \n\nIn\n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 1237 of 2010\n \n\nwith\n \n\nCIVIL\nAPPLICATION No. 1710 of 2010\n \n\nin\n \n\nLETTERS\nPATENT APPEAL No. 251 of 2010 \n \n\n\n \n\nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \nHONOURABLE\nMS. JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT\n \n&\n \n\nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE MD SHAH\n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo\n\t\t\tbe referred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to civil judge ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n=========================================================\n\n \n\nPATEL\nPINALBEN DASHRATBHAI & 4 - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \n Appearance\n: [Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 153, 173 & 241 of  2010] \nMr\nSI NANAVATI Sr Advocate with Ms ANUJA S NANAVATI\nfor\nAppellants \nMr SHIVANG SHUKLA AGP for Respondents                  \n                                                                 Mr\nSHALIN N MEHTA for Respondent Nos. 3-7\n \n\n Appearance\n: [Letters Patent Appeal Nos.175 of  2010] \nMr\nIS SUPEHIA  with Mr AS SUPEHIA for  Appellants \nMr SHIVANG SHUKLA\nAGP for Respondents.\n \n\n Appearance\n: [Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 373 of  2010] \nMrs\nNISHA M PARIKH   for Appellants \nMr SHIVANG SHUKLA AGP for\nRespondents.\n \n\n Appearance\n: [Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 251  of  2010] \nMs\nTEJAL VASHI  for Appellants \nMr SHIVANG SHUKLA AGP for\nRespondents. \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\tMS. JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nand\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n HONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE MD SHAH      9th \/ 10th March\n\t\t\t2010 & 11th March 2010\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n ORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
 (Per
\n: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT)<\/p>\n
With the consent of the learned
\nadvocates, the Appeals are heard and decided today.\n<\/p>\n
This group of Appeals preferred
\nunder Clause 15 of the Letters Patent arise from the judgment and
\norder dated 28th
\nJanuary 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in above Special
\nCivil Applications. The appellants are the writ
\n petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
 The appellants are the persons who have taken PTC training [Primary
\nTeacher’s Course] for two years
\nin the colleges recognized by the State of Gujarat and the National
\nCouncil for Education Training, Bhopal. The petitioners have taken
\nand have passed the PTC examination conducted by the State
\nExamination Board, Gujarat State, Gandhinagar between the years 2004
\nand 2008.\n<\/p>\n
The matter at dispute is the selection procedure for appointment of
\nVidya Sahayaks in the State of Gujarat. On 22nd
\nDecember 2009, an advertisement was published to invite applications
\nfrom the eligible candidates for appointment of Vidya Sahayaks under
\nvarious District Primary Education Committees in the State of
\nGujarat. The selection for appointment of Vidya Sahayaks is made on
\nthe basis of aggregate marks obtained by the candidates at the
\nqualifying examinations   HSC-PTC; Graduate-B.Ed.; HSC-CP.Ed. It is
\nnot in dispute that the merit list is drawn on the basis of marks
\nobtained in the qualifying examinations. Forty per cent
\nof the marks are attached to the first qualifying examination, that
\nis to say, HSC or Graduation.  Sixty per cent
\n marks are attached to the later qualifying examinations; say
\nPTC\/B.Ed.\/CP.Ed. The dispute arose on account of marking pattern at
\nthe PTC examination which has undergone change over the years.\n<\/p>\n
 It appears that earlier, the PTC examination was of total 1600 marks
\nwhich was in the later years reduced to 1500 \/ 1450 and since 2009,
\nthe total marks are reduced to 1000 marks. Evidently, if sixty per
\ncent of the total marks obtained
\nwere considered, the candidates who had passed the PTC examination in
\nthe earlier years viz., in the year 2008 or earlier, would stand at
\nan advantage. This position gave rise to a litigation. The aggrieved
\ncandidates who have passed PTC examination in the year 2009
\napproached this Court under Article
\n226 of the Constitution in Special Civil Application No. 13743 of
\n2009. Pending the said petition, the State Government issued
\nClarification \/ Explanation dated 6th
\nJanuary 2010.  The said explanation redressed the grievance of the
\npetitioners in Special Civil Application No. 13743 of 2009.
\nEventually, the writ
\npetition was disposed of. However, the said explanation has triggered
\n the present set of writ
\npetitions.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe
\nappellants are aggrieved by the aforesaid clarification \/ explanation
\ndated 6th
\nJanuary 2010 and the consequent circular dated 15th
\nJanuary 2010. The appellants have passed the PTC examination in the
\nyear 2008 or earlier. According to then prevalent system, the result
\nof the PTC was based on the marks awarded on internal evaluation at
\nthe written examination and the practical examination. Under the
\nCircular dated 15th
\nJanuary 2010, the State Government has decided that only the marks
\nobtained at the written examination and the practical examination
\nwill be considered for ascertaining the comparative merit of the
\ncandidates. In other words, the marks awarded for the internal
\nevaluation   out of total 450\/300 as the internal marks will be
\nignored for the purpose of selection of the Vidya Sahayaks. This
\nclearly places the appellants to a disadvantage. Therefore, the writ
\npetitions.\n<\/p>\n
\tBefore
\nthe learned Single Judge, the appellants challenged the above
\nreferred Circular dated 15th January 2010. The appellants’
\nclaim is that they had passed the PTC examination in the year 2008 or
\nearlier. At the time, the recruitment of Vidya Sahayaks was governed
\nby the Government Resolution dated 3rd September 2004. The right of
\nthe appellants were accordingly crystallized.  The same could not
\nhave been altered to the detriment of the appellants. The subsequent
\nResolution  of 7th July 2008, though did do away with the internal
\nevaluation, did not affect the rights accrued to the appellants under
\nthe above referred Circular dated 3rd September 2004. It is now for
\nthe first time under Circular dated 15th January 2010, the rights
\naccrued to the appellants under Circular  dated 3rd September 2004
\nhave been abrogated with a view to striking equality between the
\ncandidates who have passed the PTC examination in the year 2009 and
\nthose who have passed examination in the year 2008 or earlier. The
\nmarks obtained by the appellants in the internal examination have
\nbeen ignored. The impugned circular is thus arbitrary in so
\nfar as it affects the vested rights of the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
The learned Single Judge has, by the impugned judgment and order
\ndated 28th January 2010, rejected the contention. The learned Single
\nJudge was of the opinion that it was a matter of policy that,  such
\nmodification was along the policy and decision of the Government
\nafter consideration of relevant facts and circumstances, which cannot
\nbe subjected to judicial review.  Therefore,  the
\nargument that the Government has changed the rules by changing the
\ncriteria for selection after starting the process of recruitment is
\nnegatived and rejected.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t 10 th
\nMarch 2010<\/p>\n
\tThe
\nquestion is that of recruitment for appointment to the post of Vidya
\nSahayaks. The scheme for appointment of Vidya Sahayaks to aid the
\nprimary education in the State of Gujarat was evolved by the State
\nGovernment in June, 1998. It was decided to make appointment of Vidya
\nSahayaks on vacant posts of primary school teachers on a consolidated
\npay from amongst the candidates possessing educational qualification\n<\/p>\n
– [i] SSC-PTC; [ii] Trained Graduates (Graduation & a
\nPost-Graduate Degree in Education); [iii] SSC-CP Ed. (Certificate
\nin Physical Education). It was also decided that for selection of
\nthe candidates, the marks be calculated on the basis of forty per
\ncent of the marks obtained at SSC or Graduation examination; as
\nthe case may be, and sixty per cent of the marks obtained at
\nthe PTC or B.Ed. or CP.Ed. Examination; as the case may be.  The said
\ncriteria was modified to the extent that the required qualification
\nwas raised to that of HSC-PTC or HSC-CP.Ed. The evaluation of merit
\nwas maintained in the same manner i.e., forty per cent of the
\nmarks obtained at HSC or Graduation examination and sixty per cent
\nof the marks obtained in PTC or B.Ed. or CP.Ed. examination.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t 11 th
\nMarch 2010<\/p>\n
Under
\nits Resolution dated 9th June 1998, the Government of
\nGujarat modified the admission rules to the PTC. Since the academic
\nyear 1998-99, the required qualification for admission to PTC was
\nraised to HSCE [Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination]
\nfrom that of SSCE [Secondary School Certificate Examination].
\nWith a view to keeping pace with the modified admission rules to PTC,
\nthe State Government under its Resolution dated  21st June
\n2000 modified the rule of eligibility. Under Government Resolution
\ndated 1st October 2001, the State Examination Board
\nmodified the pattern of PTC examination. The State Government under
\nits Resolution dated 3rd September 2005 modified the
\nstandard of selection for recruitment of Vidya Sahayaks. Under its
\nResolution dated 7th July 2008, the State Government
\nmodified the examination pattern for PTC examination effective from
\nthe academic year 2008-2009. Under the modified pattern, the
\nweightage to the internal marks has been done away with so that the
\nexamination result is based on written examination of 900 marks and
\npractical examination of 100 marks [50 marks for annual lesson and
\n50 marks for computer knowledge]. Now, in the year 2010, the
\ncompetition is between the candidates who have passed PTC examination
\nof total 1000 marks in the year 2009 and the candidates who have
\npassed the PTC examination of total 1500 marks earlier. The
\ncompetition being not amongst the equals, the State Government was
\nrequired to strike the balance. That balance has been struck by the
\nimpugned circular dated 15th January 2010. The State
\nGovernment has decided that for all candidates only the marks
\nobtained in the external examination and practical examination out of
\ntotal of 1000 marks will be considered for recruitment as Vidya
\nSahayak. In other words, the marks obtained by the candidates for
\ninternal evaluation will not be considered for the purpose of
\nrecruitment as Vidya Sahayak. Evidently, those of the candidates who
\nhad secured better marks for internal evaluation would stand to lose
\nin competition.\n<\/p>\n
\tLearned
\nadvocate Mr. S.I Nanavati appears for the appellants in Letters
\nPatent Appeal Nos.173 of 2010; 153 of 2010 & 241 of 2010. He has
\nsubmitted that the impugned circular abridges the vested
\nrights of the appellants of selection on the basis of the marks out
\nof the total 1500 marks, including the marks allotted for internal
\nevaluation. He has submitted that until the Resolution dated 7th
\nJuly 2008, the marks obtained in internal evaluation were considered
\nfor selection for appointment as Vidya Sahayak. Even under Government
\nResolution dated 7th July 2008 this position continued as
\nthe said resolution was made prospective in its application i.e.,
\nwith effect from the academic year 2008-2009. The appellants who had
\npassed the PTC examination in the year 2008 or earlier were not
\nadversely affected by the said Resolution. It is the impugned
\ncircular dated 15th January 2010 which has changed the
\nposition to the detriment of the appellants’ interest. He has
\nsubmitted that no change in Government policy could be made
\nretrospectively so as to adversely affect the vested right of the
\nappellants. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the
\njudgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the mattes of Punjab
\nUniversity vs. Subhas Chander & Anr.<\/a>[(1984) 3 SCC 603];
\nand of Chairman, Railway Board & Ors. vs. C.R
\nRangadhamanaiah & Ors.<\/a>  [1997 (6) SCC 623].\n<\/p>\n
 In the alternative, Mr. Nanavati has submitted that if at all the
\nState Government was required to strike balance amongst the
\ncandidates not equally situated, the State Government could have
\ndecided to scale down the marks obtained by the candidates out of the
\ntotal 1500 marks proportionately so as to bring them at par with the
\ncandidates who have passed the examination of a total 1000 marks. But
\nin no circumstances, the State Government can be permitted to ignore
\nthe marks obtained by the appellants for internal evaluation. The
\nappellants had to work hard to secure good marks for internal
\nevaluation. If the marks for internal evaluation are not considered
\nfor the purpose of selection for appointment as Vidya Sahayak, the
\nappellants would stand to lose. He has submitted that the impugned
\ncircular dated 15th January 2010 is arbitrary to the
\nextent the appellants’ vested right is abrogated as aforesaid and
\nrequires to be quashed and set-aside.\n<\/p>\n
Learned advocates Mr.I.S Supehia, Ms. Nisha M. Parikh & Ms. Tejal
\nVashi appearing for the appellants in respective Letters Patent
\nAppeals have adopted the arguments advanced by Mr. Nanavati.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe
\nare afraid, we are unable to agree with the contentions raised by Mr.
\nNanavati.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe
\ngrievance made by the appellants is based on a misconception of law.
\nFirst, by passing PTC examination, no right is conferred upon the
\nappellants to appointment as Vidya Sahayak. Second, it is also
\nmisconceived that the State Government is under obligation to
\nconsider the marks
\nobtained by the candidates at PTC examination in its entirety, for
\nrecruitment as Vidya Sahayak. The passing of PTC examination is one
\nthing and the selection for appointment as Vidya Sahayak is another.
\nIt is a mere co-incidence that in the present case, the PTC
\nexamination is conducted by the State Examination Board. In other
\nwords, it is the State Government which gives the PTC examination and
\nby and large the persons who have passed the PTC examination do
\nsecure employment as Vidya Sahayak in the Primary Schools run by
\nvarious District Panchayats\/Municipalities. But, in our opinion, two
\nthings are quite different.\n<\/p>\n
As recorded hereinabove, there are two sets of Resolutions\/Circulars
\nrunning parallel. One set of Resolutions\/Circulars are issued in
\nrespect of the PTC course and the PTC examination i.e., the requisite
\nqualification for admission to PTC course; the number of subjects in
\nthe PTC course and the pattern of examination. There is a constant
\nchange in the pattern of examination i.e., whether or not to have
\ninternal evaluation; what should be the extent of weightage to the
\ninternal evaluation; what should be the total marks in the
\nexamination, etc.<\/p>\n
The other set of Resolutions\/Circulars deal with recruitment of Vidya
\nSahayaks. It is evident that the pattern of recruitment of Vidya
\nSahayak has been changed from time to time to fall in line with the
\npattern in PTC examination. Now that since the academic year
\n2008-2009 the State Government has done away with the internal
\nevaluation at the PTC course, the question of considering the marks
\nof internal evaluation for the purpose of selection of Vidya Sahayak
\nwould not arise. Further, the selection process is required to be
\nuniformly applied to all candidates irrespective of the year of their
\npassing the examination or the pattern of examination in the relevant
\nyear. The policy decision contained in the Government  Resolution
\ndated 7th July 2008, therefore, will apply to all
\nrecruitment procedures conducted after 7th July 2008
\nuniformly to all the candidates. It is manifestly wrong to say that
\nthe present policy contained in the Government Resolution dated 7th
\nJuly 2008 and the Circular dated 15th January 2010 cannot
\nbe made applicable to the appellants who have passed the PTC
\nexamination prior to the academic year 2008-2009. It is equally wrong
\nto say that the policy has been applied retrospectively. The said
\nResolution and the Circulars are indeed applied prospectively i.e.,
\nto the recruitment procedures commencing after 7th July
\n2008, the date of the Resolution.\n<\/p>\n
Let us examine the very issue from another angle. If we accept the
\nargument of the appellants; it would mean that in the same
\nrecruitment process, the State Government should apply two different
\nsets of selection standards   one for the candidates who have
\npassed the PTC examination in the year 2009 and other for the
\ncandidates who have passed the PTC examination in the year 2008 or
\nearlier. The contention which leads to such absurdity has to be
\nrejected.\n<\/p>\n
In our view the learned Single Judge has rightly held that
\ndetermination of standard of selection is a matter of policy and that
\nthe Court should not interfere with it. More so, when we are of the
\nopinion that neither the appellants have a vested right to selection
\nfor appointment as Vidya Sahayak  nor to selection by a particular
\nmethod which was prevalent at the time of their passing the PTC
\nexamination.\n<\/p>\n
As to the feasibility of scaling down the marks proportionately, we
\nare of the opinion that while exercising the power of judicial review
\nunder Article 226, we need not usurp the advisory
\njurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
In the matter of Punjab University vs. Subash Chander &
\nAnr.<\/a> [Supra], the Hon’ble Court had an occasion
\nto consider the claim of a student of medical college for grace marks
\nin accordance with the rules prevalent at the time of his admission
\nto medical college and not in accordance with the rules prevalent at
\nthe time of the concerned examination. The argument was that a change
\nin the rules relating to the award of grace marks brought about in
\nthe month of May 1970, after the student had secured admission in the
\nyear 1965, could not be applied retrospectively to the student
\nconcerned. In answer to the argument, the Hon’ble Court held
\nthat the change in the rules was prospective. The Court observed,
\n ..It is not possible to hold that it is retrospective in
\noperation merely because though introduced in 1970 it was applied to
\nSubhash Chander, respondent 1, who appeared for the final examination
\nin 1974, after he had joined the course earlier in 1965. No promise
\nwas made or could be deemed to have been made to him at the time of
\nhis admission in 1965 that there will be no alteration to the rule or
\nregulation in regard to the percentage of marks required for passing
\nany examination or award of grace marks and that the rules relating
\nthereto which were in force at the time of his admission would
\ncontinue to be applied to him until he finished his whole course.\n<\/p>\n
 In the matter of Chairman, Railway Board & Ors. [Supra],
\nthe matter at issue was the amendment made to a service regulation
\naffecting the running staff of the railways. The impugned
\namendment not only operated in futuro,  had an effect of
\nreversal from an anterior date, adversely affecting the pension of
\nthe retired running staff [personnels employed as Drivers, Guards,
\netc., attached to the railway]. The Hon’ble Court accepted
\nthe proposition that once a person joins service under the
\nGovernment, the relationship between him and the Government is in the
\nnature of status rather than contractual and the terms of his service
\nwhile he is in employment, are governed by statute or statutory rule,
\nwhich may be unilaterally altered without the consent of the
\nemployees. But, the Court held,  ..It can, therefore, be said
\nthat a rule which operates in futuro so as to govern future rights of
\nthose already in service cannot be assailed on the ground of retro
\nactivity as being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the
\nConstitution, but a rule which seeks to reverse from an anterior date
\na benefit which has been granted or availed of, e.g., promotion or
\npay scale, can be assailed as being violative of Articles 14 and 16
\nof the Constitution to the extent it operates retrospectively.\n<\/p>\n
Both the above referred principles are well established and do not
\ncall for further deliberation.\n<\/p>\n
 The question is whether or not the appellants before us had a vested
\nright for being considered for recruitment as Vidya Sahayak in a
\nparticular manner; whether or not the decision to consider only the
\nexternal marks and the practical marks obtained at the PTC
\nexamination for recruitment under process is arbitrary in as much as
\nin operates retrospectively; as alleged.\n<\/p>\n
As discussed hereinabove, we are of the opinion that passing of PTC
\nexamination did not confer a vested right unto the appellants to
\nemployment as Vidya Sahayak or to be considered for employment as
\nVidya Sahayak in a particular manner. Further, for any recruitment
\nprocess a uniform policy is required to be applied. Such policy,
\nmerely because the participating candidates have passed the PTC
\nexamination in  different years, cannot be said to be  retrospective.
\nIf the contention is accepted the present recruitment process can be
\nsaid to have been applied with effect from 2004 and also with effect
\nfrom 2005, from 2006, from 2007, etc. The absurdity of the argument
\nis explicit and requires to be rejected.\n<\/p>\n
 For the aforesaid reasons, we dismiss this set of Appeals.
\nCivil Applications stand disposed of. Ad interim
\nrelief, if any, stands vacated.\n<\/p>\n
 Learned advocate Mr. Nanavati requests that the interim order made
\non 14th February 2010 [Coram
\n: Mr. Justice Bhagwati Prasad & Mr.
\nJustice Bankim N. Mehta] be continued for four weeks.
\nContinuation of interim order will result into posts being
\nkept vacant and would also lead to preparation of merit list on the
\nbasis of two different principles. The Appeals having been dismissed,
\nneither the posts are required to be kept vacant nor the respondents
\nare required to prepare two merit lists applying two different
\nprinciples.  The request is rejected.\n<\/p>\n
{Ms.\n<\/p>\n
R.M Doshit, J.}<\/p>\n
 {M.D
\nShah, J.}<\/p>\n
Prakash*<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Patel vs State on 9 March, 2010 Author: R.M.Doshit,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice Shah,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print LPA\/173\/2010 1\/ 19 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 173 of 2010 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 316 of 2010 with CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1266 of 2010 […]<\/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-167960","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nPatel vs State on 9 March, 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\/patel-vs-state-on-9-march-2010-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Patel vs State on 9 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-vs-state-on-9-march-2010-2\" \/>\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=\"2010-03-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-12-14T09:57:08+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=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/patel-vs-state-on-9-march-2010-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/patel-vs-state-on-9-march-2010-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Patel vs State on 9 March, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-14T09:57:08+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/patel-vs-state-on-9-march-2010-2\"},\"wordCount\":3181,\"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\\\/patel-vs-state-on-9-march-2010-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/patel-vs-state-on-9-march-2010-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/patel-vs-state-on-9-march-2010-2\",\"name\":\"Patel vs State on 9 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-14T09:57:08+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/patel-vs-state-on-9-march-2010-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/patel-vs-state-on-9-march-2010-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/patel-vs-state-on-9-march-2010-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Patel vs State on 9 March, 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":"Patel vs State on 9 March, 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\/patel-vs-state-on-9-march-2010-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Patel vs State on 9 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-vs-state-on-9-march-2010-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-03-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-12-14T09:57:08+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":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-vs-state-on-9-march-2010-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-vs-state-on-9-march-2010-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Patel vs State on 9 March, 2010","datePublished":"2010-03-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-14T09:57:08+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-vs-state-on-9-march-2010-2"},"wordCount":3181,"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\/patel-vs-state-on-9-march-2010-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-vs-state-on-9-march-2010-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-vs-state-on-9-march-2010-2","name":"Patel vs State on 9 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-03-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-14T09:57:08+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-vs-state-on-9-march-2010-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-vs-state-on-9-march-2010-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-vs-state-on-9-march-2010-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Patel vs State on 9 March, 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\/167960","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=167960"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/167960\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=167960"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=167960"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=167960"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}