AJIT D PADIWAL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal against summary rejection of the Special Civil Application, challenges the action of the High Court on administrative side in selecting and recommending the names for appointment to the posts of City Civil Judges and District Judges in Gujarat by way of direct recruitment. The challenge is based on the following grounds :- (a) That the selection is arbitrary and denies equality of opportunity to all eligible and equally situated persons because all of them have not been invited for consideration; (b) That under Art. 233 of the Constitution of India, the decision is required to be taken by the Full Court on administrative side and in the present case, the decision cannot be said to have been taken by the Full Court; (c) That the selection is arbitrary and that the said decision suffers from favouritism and nepotism; (d) That the learned single Judge has erred in holding that, Arts. 14 and 16 cannot be invoked and extended to a constitutional post (para 26 of the judgment) and that the principles of Arts. 14 and 16 cannot be brought in while considering the recommendations to be made under Art. 233 of the Constitution of India (Para 30) and that the office of the District Judge cannot be considered to be an employment for the purpose of Art. 16 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) At the beginning of the arguments, the appellant had raised an objection to the hearing of this appeal by this Bench. We have heard the appellant on that aspect and thereafter the appeal was heard on merits on March 1, 1995 and on the next day also for the full day and at the end of the day, the appellant stated that he had nothing further to add and the matter was adjourned to the next working day, i.e., on Monday, the 6th March 1995; and he made a Civil Application No. 356 of 1995 wherein the same cause has been reagitated and other prayers have been made. He completed his arguments in the first half of the day and in the second half of the day, Mr. Girish Patel, the learned Intervenor in the matter made his submissions so also other learned Advocates Mr. Avinash Mankad and P. J. Mehta made their submissions. Today, Mr. H. M. Mehta, learned Senior Advocate has also made his submissions as Intervenor. The submissions of the appellant are at a great length, on all grounds whereas all the other learned Advocates have made their submissions on limited grounds. We will consider all these submissions at appropriate stage.

(3.) Dealing with the objection to the constitution of this Bench by the learned Chief Justice, the appellant submits that the selection committee is party respondent No. 3 to the petition and the appeal and since the Hon'ble the Chief Justice was the Chairman of the said respondent No. 3 Committee, he has no power to constitute any special Bench to hear this Letters Patent Appeal.