RAMANBHAI MAGANBHAI TURI Vs. DISTT SUPDT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The names of the present petitioners were sent through Employment Exchange for selection for the post of Armed Police Constable. The petitioners received interview call letters and after necessary physical test, etc., they were selected for the aforesaid post. As per the averments in the petition, 185 candidates were selected, out of which 100 candidates were issued appointment orders and the rest were kept in the waiting list. The petitioners were kept in the waiting list. It is averred in the petition that the department operated the said waiting list upon serial No. 15 and thereafter, rest of the candidates in the waiting list from serial Nos. 16 to 85 were waiting for their turn. Since the Department thereafter did not operate the said waiting list, on the ground that the life of that waiting list is over, having lived its life of one year, no further appointments were made from the said waiting list. The petitioners, therefore, challenged the aforesaid action of the Government in not operating the said waiting list by filing the present Special Civil Application. It is averred in Paragraph 4 that the action of the respondents in treating the said list as having expired after a period of one year is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory. In Paragraph 5 of the petition, the petitioners have given example of one Arvindbhai Jeshingbhai Barot, who, according to the petitioners, was selected and placed in the waiting list in June, 1987 and he was subsequently appointed even after the expiry of the period of one year. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioners have challenged the aforesaid action of the respondents. It is prayed in the petition that the respondents may be restrained permanently from treating the waiting list of Armed Police Constable prepared by them in June, 1989 as lapsed after a period of one year unless and until the petitioners and all other candidates on the said waiting list are given appointment order.

(2.) On behalf of the respondent, affidavit-in-reply has been filed at page 8. Relevant averments in the affidavit-in-reply in Paragraphs 5 and 6 are as under : 5. As armed Police Constables were to be appointed in Sabarkantha District, after interviewing several candidates including the petitioners, waiting list was prepared by the respondent for appointment to the post of Armed Police Constables. It is submitted that normally, waiting list of more persons is prepared because very often persons selected for the post do not accept their appointments and, therefore, size of waiting list is always more. It is submitted that from the waiting list prepared by the respondent, persons who were upto SI. Nos. 1 to 8 were offered appointment to the post of Armed Police Constables. It is submitted that the petitioners are admittedly at Sl. Nos. 12 and 20 respectively and, therefore, the petitioners were not appointed as Armed Police Constables. I reiterate that no person whose name is below the name of the petitioners in the said waiting list has been appointed as Armed Police Constables. 6. It is submitted that a waiting list prepared for the purpose of giving appointment to the post of Police Constables remains in force for a period of one year from the date of its preparation. It is submitted that the said policy has been laid down by the State of Gujarat in Home Department under its Circular dated 5th June, 1982 and the said Circular is being followed scrupulously. A copy of the said circular is annexed and marked as Annexure-I to this affidavit in reply. It is submitted that the petitioners and other candidates were interviewed for selection to the post of Armed Police Constables from 14th to 17th June, 1989. In the circumstances, it is submitted that the waiting list prepared by the respondent wherein names of the petitioners have been included has already been expired. It is submitted that the validity of the above referred circular dated 5th June, 1982 was challenged in Special.C.A. No. 1623 of 1989. This Hon'ble Court was pleased to reject the said petition by upholding the validity of the above referred circular issued by the Government. It is, therefore, submitted that by virtue of circular dated 5th June, 1982, the waiting list in question has expired and, therefore, the petitioners cannot be appointed as Armed Police Constable on the basis of the said waiting list.

(3.) Mr. Pujara, learned Advocate for the petitioners, strenuously argued that if the Department had continued the waiting list prepared in 1987 in favour of Mr. Barot, there is no reason for discriminating the present petitioners and the same treatment should have been given to the petitioners by operating the waiting list. It was further argued by Mr. Pujara that if the waiting list of 1989 had been continued or operated, the petitioners would have got the chance of appointment, as, according to Mr. Pujara, waiting list of 1987 was operated as late as in the year 1989. In his submission, therefore, the question of lapsing of the waiting list after one year does not arise.