Taviyad Amrutaben Ravjibhai vs State of Gujarat and Others

Anant S. Dave, J.—This Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent has been filed by the appellant [original petitioner No. 1] against the judgment and order dated 1st April 2004 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 8892 of 2002.

By order dated 23rd June 2005, the Division Bench [Coram: G.S. Singhvi {as His Lordship then was} and Anant S. Dave JJ.] of this Court dismissed Civil Application No. 4878 of 2005 for condonation of delay since no one appeared on behalf of the applicant even in the second round also and the dismissal of the application for condonation of delay resulted into dismissal of Letters Patent Appeal [Stamp] No. 160 of 2005 as time-barred. In the above order dated 23rd June 2005, the Court observed that, since the name of the petitioner was not included in the select list, she has no legal or vested right to be appointed against the advertised post.

Later on, Letters Patent Appeal No. 2060 of 2004 filed by petitioner Nos. 2, 3 and 4 arising out of the same judgment and order dated 1st April 2004 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 8892 of 2002 came to be heard on merits, where, relevant record pertaining to the advertisement, selection and appointment for the post of Vidya Sahayak was placed before the Court. After analyzing relevant provisions of the recruitment rules for the post of Vidya Sahayak, the Division Bench [Coram: G.S. Singhvi {as His Lordship then was} and Anant S. Dave JJ.] of this Court, by order dated 17th August 2005, allowed Letters Patent Appeal No. 2060 of 2004 filed by petitioner Nos. 2, 3 and 4 and directed the respondents to consider the appellants of that appeal for appointment against advertised posts and to pass appropriate orders within the stipulated time.

Since Letters Patent Appeal No. 2060 of 2004 filed by petitioner Nos. 2, 3 and 4 challenging the same judgment and order dated 1st April 2004 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 8892 of 2002 came to be allowed, Misc. Civil Application No. 1927 of 2007 was filed by petitioner No. 1 for restoration, which came to be allowed by this Court by order dated 24th July 2007. After Letters Patent Appeal [Stamp] No. 160 of 2005 was restored and registered as Letters Patent Appeal No. 810 of 2005 and delay stands condoned, on 24th April 2008, the following order came to be passed by this Division Bench:

Shri P.R.Abichandani, learned Counsel submits that Special Civil Application No. 8892 of 2002 was preferred jointly by four petitioners. That writ petition was dismissed on 01.04.2004. The petitioners No. 2 to 4 filed common appeal and the petitioner No. 1 had filed separate appeal. The appeal of the petitioners Nos.2 to 4 i.e. Letters Patent Appeal No. 2060 of 2004 was allowed by order dated 17.08.2005. But the separate appeal i.e. Letters Patent Appeal No. 810 of 2005 filed by the petitioner No. 1-appellant-Taviyad Amrutaben Ravjibhai has been dismissed as none appeared for her at the time of hearing and also on the ground of delay. However, that has been restored.

Now, learned Counsel submits that when the facts and issue is common in case of all four petitioners and when the appeal of the appellants-petitioners Nos.2 to 4 is allowed by order dated 17.08.2005, the order dated 23.06.2005 passed in appeal against the petitioner No. 1-appellant should be recalled and similar relief which has been granted in case of the petitioners Nos.2 to 4-appellants, that should be given to the petitioner No. 1-appellant herein.

Issue notice to the respondents returnable by 1st May, 2008.

Direct Service is permitted.

List it on 1st May, 2008.

Heard Mr. P.R. Abichandani, learned Counsel for the appellant, Mr. A.J. Desai, learned Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent No. 1, Mr. U.M. Shastri, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 and Mr. Hardik B. Gupta learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 3 to 5. Respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 are original co-petitioners Nos. 2, 3 and 4 and no relief is claimed against them.

At the outset, it is to be noted that the facts stated hereinabove are not disposed by the learned Counsels appearing for the respondents. The appellant herein [petitioner No. 1] is similarly situated like the appellants [petitioner Nos. 2, 3 and 4] of Letters Patent Appeal No. 2060 of 2004 and one of the petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 8892 of 2004. While allowing Letters Patent Appeal No. 2060 of 2004, the Division Bench directed the respondents to consider the appellants of that appeal for appointment against advertised posts and to pass appropriate orders within the stipulated time and, therefore, the present appellant cannot be deprived of the similar relief on the ground that, at the relevant point of time the appeal preferred by the appellant herein came to be dismissed in default.

Since there is no dispute about the facts and proposition of law laid down by the Division Bench, as reflected in the order dated 17th August 2005 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 2060 of 2004, we deem it just and proper to grant similar relief to the appellant of this appeal.

For the reasons stated in the order dated 17th August 2005 passed by the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No. 2060 of 2004, we hold that the appellant herein is also entitled to the similar benefit and the respondents are directed to consider the appellant for appointment against advertised posts and to pass appropriate orders within a period of two months on receipt of writ of this order and the appellant shall be given seniority amongst the Vidhya Sahakyat at the bottom of the last appointed candidate in the District without any monetary benefits for the intervening period.

In the result, this appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs.

Consequently, Civil Application No. 10200 of 2007 stands disposed of.