Case Title:
Bhalodiya Ravikumar Jaynatilal Vs State Of Gujarat
Date:
16th June, 2022
Bench:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
Parties:
Petitioner – Bhalodiya Ravikumar Jaynatilal
Respondent – State of Gujarat
Subject
A petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash and set aside Seniority List of Multi-Purpose Health Workers which was considered for promotion to the post of Multi-Purpose Health Supervisors.
Important Provisions
Article 226 of the Constitution of India–Power of High Court to issue certain writs.
Overview
- The petitioner applied for the position of Multi-Purpose Health Worker seeing an advertisement.
- He wrote a written test and scored 55.80 marks.
- The petitioner was then called for verification of documents wherein it was informed to him that the sports certificate was of school and stated that he would not be entitled to extra marks.
- Candidates along with the petitioner were offered appointments.
- The petitioner on a letter dated 09.10.2012 stated that even if his marks for the certificate were not considered he would still be on merit.
- The petitioner was issued an appointment letter only on 08.07.2013.
- The placement of the petitioner at the Seniority List of Multi-Purpose Health Workers was placed at Serial No.184 instead of his expected Serial No.105 A since the petitioner was appointed as Multi-Purpose Health Worker on 09/07/2013.
Issues raised
- Whether delay in appointment due to no fault of the candidate can be allowed to result in delayed promotion?
Advancements made by the appellants
- The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the candidates who joined on 03/10/2012 were placed on seniority list no.105.
- Since the petitioner had merit higher than the candidate at 106, he was to be placed at 105 A.
- The candidates at 106 and 107 were placed for this same promotion as Multi-Purpose Health Supervisors by an order dated 08/03/2019.
- The learned counsel submitted that the delay lied purely in the hands of the respondents and that there was no delay on the part of the petitioner.
- The petitioner was given an appointment order after nine months and eight days even after the petitioner accepted the stand of the respondents for not insisting on a certificate of cricket.
- The learned counsel relied upon the Resolution of State Sub-clause (ch) of Para 11 which stated that when the delay was not on account of the candidate who had secured the appointment, the order of preference in the merit should be given to the candidate.
- The learned counsel also relied upon the case of M.C.D Vs. Veena and Others.
Advancements made by the Respondents
- The learned counsel for the Respondents argued that since the petitioner could not supply the sports certificate in accordance with the rules, he was addressed a letter dated 03/10/2012 to submit the same within four days. He did not do so.
- The petitioner had misrepresented the case by submitting his application by providing incorrect information.
Judgment Analysis
- The Court observed that the petitioner had offered himself for the appointment minus the Certificate of Cricket stating that his name would otherwise also fall within the merit.
- The respondent took nine months and eight days to respond and offered the petitioner an appointment on 08/07/2013 only.
- The delay was therefore in the hands of the respondent and not with the petitioner who had immediately submitted the application within four days without the Certificate of Cricket.
- In the case of M.C.D Vs. Veena it was held that even though the OBC certificate was not produced, the respondent therein was considered in the general category.
Conclusion
The Court concluded by allowing the petition and quashing the list placing the petitioner at 184 which automatically entitles the petitioner for being promoted to the post of Multi-purpose Health Supervisor with all benefits and arrears of pay.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
