Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
LPA/302/2010 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 302 of 2010
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7594 of 2009
With
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 1869 of 2010
In
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 302 of 2010
=========================================================
ZALA
DHIRENDRASINH DHARAMENDRASINH C/O MAHIPALSINH K VALA - Appellant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
SP KOTIA for
Appellant(s) : 1,
MR PRANAV TRIVEDI, ASSTT.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for
Respondent(s) :
1-3
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MS. JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH
Date
: 15/03/2010
ORAL
ORDER
(Per : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE
R.M.DOSHIT)
This
Appeal preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent arises from
the judgment and order dated 30th September 2009 passed by
the learned single Judge in above Special Civil Application
No.7594/2009.
The
matter at dispute is the recruitment for appointment to the post of
Police Sub Inspector (Unarmed).
In
answer to the advertisement dated 28th
April 2005 published by
Gujarat Sub-ordinate Services Selection Board (hereinafter referred
to as the Board ) for recruitment of 186 Police Sub Inspectors
(Unarmed), the appellant had applied for selection and appointment as
Police Sub Inspector. On completion of the recruitment process, on
19th
September 2007 the Board published the select list of 186 successful
candidates and a wait list of next 20 candidates. The appellant did
not find place in 186 selected candidates. However, he was placed at
Sr.No.9 in the wait list.
Before
the learned single Judge, it was the grievance of the appellant that
though the wait list was operated upto Sr.No.8, the appellant who was
at Sr.No.9 on the wait list was not offered appointment. Though
select list of 186 candidates was drawn, everybody did not accept the
appointment to the post of Police Sub Inspector. The resultant
vacancies were filled in by operating the wait list. Amongst those
who accepted the appointment and joined the training, some resigned
from training within a few days. However, the respondent
authorities arbitrarily decided not to operate the wait list to fill
in the vacancies arose on account of resignation of two newly
recruited trainee police sub inspectors.
The
learned single Judge has rejected the contention. It is held that
the vacancies that arose on account of resignation of trainees are
required to be filled in by proper recruitment procedure and cannot
be offered to the wait list candidates. Therefore, the present
Appeal.
Learned
advocate Mr. Kotia has appeared for the appellant. He has submitted
that the action of the respondents authorities is high handed,
arbitrary and discriminatory. Mr. Kotia has submitted that if all
186 candidates do not report for duty in pursuance of their selection
or some of those who join the duty, resign later, all these vacancies
are equal and are required to be treated equally and to be filled in
by operating the wait list.
We
are unable to agree with Mr. Kotia. It is settled law that wait list
is required to be operated only in case when the selected candidates
do not accept the appointment. The wait list cannot be operated to
fill in vacancies arising on account of resignation of newly
recruited personnel. Such posts falling vacant on account of
resignation are required to be filled in by proper recruitment
process and not by operating the wait list.
Besides,
as indicated in the result declared by the Board, the wait list was
operative for a period of two years or till the next select list is
ready, whichever be the earlier. The results were declared on 19th
September 2007. The wait list in question has expired on 18th
September 2009. It is not the case of the appellant that any person
on the wait list below the
appellant has been appointed superseding the appellant.
The
action of the respondents in not operating the wait list to fill in
the posts falling vacant on account of resignation cannot be said to
be arbitrary or discriminatory. The learned single Judge has rightly
rejected the writ petition. No case for interference is made out.
The Appeal is dismissed in limine.
Civil
Application stands disposed of.
(M.D.
Shah, J.) (Ms. R.M. Doshit, J.)
*menon
Top