Dismissed

Karshanbhai Bhurabhai Sardhara v. State of Gujarat

Gujarat HC4 Feb 2020LPA/131/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal against a Single Judge order rejecting a petitioner's claim for appointment as a Lok Rakshak due to color blindness. The Court held that the petition was barred by a decade-long lapse, characterizing the petitioner's delay as acquiescence.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed for lack of merits, and the Single Judge's order dismissing the writ petition stood affirmed.

Karshanbhai Bhurabhai Sardhara Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gujarat HC (2020)

¶1

C/LPA/131/2020 ORDER

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 131 of 2020

¶4

In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1813 of 2019

¶5

========================================================== KARSHANBHAI BHURABHAI SARDHARA

¶6

Versus

¶7

STATE OF GUJARAT

¶8

==========================================================

¶9

Appearance:

¶10

MR TUSHAR L SHETH FOR MR ANKIT SHAH(6371) for the Appellant(s) No. 1

¶11

for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2

¶12

==========================================================

¶13

CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIKRAM NATH and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI

¶14

Date : 04/02/2020

¶15

ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI)

¶16

The present Letters Patent Appeal, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, is filed against judgment and order dated 27.11.2019, passed in Special Civil Application No.1813 of 2019, whereby the learned Single Judge was pleased to dismiss the petition.

¶17

The appellant – original petitioner, has approached this Court on the premise that pursuant to advertisement dated 23.5.2007, published for the post of Unarmed Police Constable,

¶18

having fully eligible for the post, nomenclature given as ‘Lok

¶19

Page 1 of 7

¶20

C/LPA/131/2020 ORDER

¶21

Rakshak’, the applicant applied for the same. He remained successful in the written examination as well as oral interview. Vide communication dated 10.2.2009, the appellant was asked to remain personally present on 17.2.2009 along with 20 other candidates. According to the appellant, the call to remain present was related to documents to be provided for appointment to the post in question. Simultaneously, since it is mandatorily required to undergo medical check-up, the appellant was asked to do the same. In the check-up, the appellant was found as having colour blindness. On account of such fact, according to the appellant, no appointment was given.

¶22

2.1 It is the appellant’s case that he recently came to know of the fact that colour blindness is not to be treated as ineligibility. Various decisions have been made where the candidates have been considered for appointment. As a result of this, the appellant had approached this Court by way of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking following reliefs :

¶23

“A. Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to declare that the decision of the respondent authorities refusing to give appointment to the petitioner on the post of Lok Rakshak, pursuant to the Advertisement No.1 of 2007 dated 23.5.2007 by the

¶24

Page 2 of 7

¶25

C/LPA/131/2020 ORDER

¶26

respondent is arbitrary, discriminatory, illegal and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and be further pleased to quash and set aside the communication at Annexure-A Colly, declaring the present petitioner to be unfit for the reasons of color vision defect.

¶27

B. Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Unarmed Police Constable ignoring his colour blindness, and if nothing adverse is found against him.

¶28

C. During the pendency and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner in the post of Lok Rakshak.

¶29

D. Any other relief deemed just and proper may please be granted in the interest of justice.”

¶30

2.2 The said petition came up for consideration before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge, after hearing at length and considering the material, found that the appellant remained dormant for an unreasonable period and did not challenge his non-consideration for appointment at the relevant point of time. It is this order of dismissal of petition which is made the subject matter of the appeal before us.

¶31

We have heard Shri Tushar L. Sheth, learned counsel appearing for Shri Ankit Shah, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Sheth has submitted that in an identical situation, various courts have directed the authorities to release the appointment

¶32

Page 3 of 7

¶33

C/LPA/131/2020 ORDER

¶34

by not treating the colour blindness as an ineligibility. Hence, the appellant may not be discriminated against. It has been submitted that appellant being the resident of a rural area, was unaware of judgments by virtue of which several candidates have been considered for appointment, having similar disease. The action of the respondent authority is not on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the learned Single Judge has committed a serious error in taking too technical view in the matter and has given undue weightage to the delay aspect. Hence, the order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be correct. No other submissions have been made.

¶35

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and gone through the material on record, it stands undisputed that the learned counsel for the appellant has been unable to point out the reasons that prevented the appellant from approaching the Court or the appropriate authority at the very moment when he was not considered for appointment, which was back in 2009. We have found that the original advertisement was published on 23.5.2007 for the post in question and during the process of medical examination, the appellant was found to be unfit, having colour blindness. This was all the way back in February-March, 2009 i.e. almost 10

¶36

Page 4 of 7

¶37

C/LPA/131/2020 ORDER

¶38

years prior that, he was not considered for the post in question. Throughout this period, no challenge was made by the appellant nor any plausible explanation has been given as to why he could not approach and raise grievance in a timely manner. The appellant’s being a resident of a rural area, is not a ground or an explanation sufficient for such an inordinate delay in agitating. As such, we are in complete agreement with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has relied upon several decisions on account of which the candidates have not been considered on the ground of gross delay. A similar case has been referred to by the learned Single Judge. The observations made by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the petition, are deemed proper by us to reproduce hereinafter :

¶39

“5.2 The Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava [(2015) 1 SCC 237] sounded a caution in this regard in the following words,

¶40

“However, this principle is subject to well-recognised exceptions in the form of latches and delays as well as acquiescence. Those persons who did not challenge the wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced into the same and woke up after long delay only because of the reason that their counterparts who had approached the court earlier in time succeeded in their efforts, then such employees cannot claim that the benefit of the judgment rendered in the case of similarly situated persons be extended to them. They would be treated as fence-sitters and latches and delays, and/or the

¶41

Page 5 of 7

¶42

C/LPA/131/2020 ORDER

¶43

acquiescence, would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim.” (para 22.2)

¶44

5.3 When the petition is filed after yawning gap of a decade, the aforesaid principle laid down by the Apex Court would indeed apply to deny the relief to the petitioner. At the cost of repetition it may be stated that, the relief to get appointment on the post of Lok Rakshak is claimed in respect of the process which was undertaken in the year 2007. The conduct is one of acquiescence. It appears that when decision of this Court was rendered, the petitioner wake up.

¶45

5.4 It may be stated that in similar case of one Maheshkumar Jayantilal Patani being Special Civil Application No.12147 of 2019, the relief was denied, where recruitment for the post of Lok Rakshak was undertaken in the year 2011 and the petition was filed on the same ground in the year 2019. Yet another Special Civil Application No.14368 of 2019 was dismissed where the recruitment process was over in the year 2009 and by assailing the ground of colour blindness, the said petitioner wanted appointment. Delay in the present case is greater and gross.

¶46

A litigant has to approach the Court within reasonable time to assert his right. Long passage of time would render the claim stale and disentitle the person to get any relief. The length of time, as in the present case, by itself becomes a valid consideration to dismiss the petition.”

¶47

In view of the aforesaid situation prevalent, more particularly since the learned Single Judge has considered the case as per submissions made in almost similar lines, we are also not inclined to observe anything in favour of the present appellant. We see no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

¶48

Page 6 of 7

¶49

C/LPA/131/2020 ORDER

¶50

Additionally, keeping in view the proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Management of

¶51

Narendra & Company Private Limited v. Workmen of Narendra & Company reported in (2016) 3 SCC 340 , more particularly Para.5, in the absence of any better submission or better material, we are not inclined to exercise our appellate jurisdiction or to substitute the view taken by the learned Single Judge. Thus, the appeal lacks merits and the same is accordingly dismissed.

¶52

(VIKRAM NATH, CJ)

¶53

(ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI, J)

¶54

V.J. SATWARA

¶55

Page 7 of 7

Karshanbhai Bhurabhai Sardhara v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karshanbhai Bhurabhai Sardhara v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Godhara Sarvajanik Shikshan Mandal through President Sharadkumar Amratlal Shah Vs Dimpleben Bhrupeshkumar Shah

Bava Kapilaben Laxmangiri Vs Dr. Vinod R.Rao , the Secretary

Karunaben Bharatbhai Patil Vs Kalupur Commercial Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Kaushik Babubhai Parmar Vs State of Gujarat

Kankuben Wd/O Natvarbhai Jeebhai Vaghri Vs State of Gujarat

Karshanbhai Bhurabhai Sardhara Vs State of Gujarat