Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging her placement as an unsuccessful candidate in the merit list for the post of Principal Class 1, science faculty, pursuant to advertisement no. 103/2016-2017. She argued that she secured higher marks than respondent No. 4 and should be placed between positions 21 and 22 as an open category female. The respondent opposed the petition, relying on a Division Bench judgment that quashed the Government Resolution dated 1st August 2018, which was the basis of the petitioner's challenge. The High Court, after hearing both sides, dismissed the petition, holding that the issue was squarely covered by the Division Bench decision, and thus, the petitioner's claim could not be entertained.
Headnote
The High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad dismissed a Special Civil Application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India -- The petitioner, challenged the action of respondent No. 2 in placing her as an unsuccessful candidate at serial number 27 in the merit list for the post of Principal Class 1, science faculty -- The petitioner argued that she secured higher marks than respondent No. 4 and should be placed between positions 21 and 22 as an open category female -- The Court held that the Government Resolution dated 1st August 2018, which formed the basis of the challenge, was quashed by a Division Bench in Tamannaben Ashokbhai Desai & Ors. V/s. Shital Amrutlal Nishar & Ors. -- Consequently, the petitioner's claim could not be sustained, and the petition was dismissed -- The decision emphasized adherence to judicial precedent and the settled law on reservation policies
Premium Content
The Headnote is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now
to access key legal points
Issue of Consideration: The Issue of consideration was whether the petitioner, a female candidate from SEBC category, was entitled to be placed in the merit list between positions 21 and 22 instead of being listed as an unsuccessful candidate, despite securing higher marks than another candidate, in light of the quashing of the Government Resolution dated 1st August 2018 by a Division Bench
Premium Content
The Issue of Consideration is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now
to access critical case issues
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the issue was squarely covered by the Division Bench judgment in Tamannaben Ashokbhai Desai & Ors. V/s. Shital Amrutlal Nishar & Ors., which quashed the Government Resolution dated 1st August 2018, and thus, the petitioner's claim could not be sustained
2026 LawText (GUJ) (01) 593
R/Special Civil Application No. 17343 of 2018
Mr. G. M. Joshi, Senior Counsel with Mr. Sanat B. Pandya for the Petitioner, Ms. Forum Bimal Sukhadwala, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent Nos. 1 & 3, Mr. I. G. Joshi for Respondent No. 2
Darshana Jashbhai Prajapati
Secretary, Education Department & Ors.
Premium Content
The Indexes are only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now
to access critical case indexes
Nature of Litigation: Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging recruitment process and merit list placement
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought writs of mandamus and certiorari to quash the action of respondent No. 2, consider her in general women reservation category, and restrain appointment of respondent No. 4
Filing Reason
The petitioner was placed as an unsuccessful candidate at serial number 27 in the merit list despite securing higher marks than respondent No. 4, alleging wrongful application of reservation policies
Previous Decisions
Government Resolution dated 1st August 2018 was quashed by Division Bench in Tamannaben Ashokbhai Desai & Ors. V/s. Shital Amrutlal Nishar & Ors. on 5th August 2020
Issues
Whether the petitioner is entitled to be placed in the merit list between positions 21 and 22 as an open category female based on higher marks
Whether the challenge to the merit list placement is sustainable after the quashing of the Government Resolution dated 1st August 2018
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued she secured higher marks than respondent No. 4 and should benefit from reservation as SEBC-women category
Respondent argued the issue is covered by Division Bench judgment quashing the Government Resolution, making petitioner's claim untenable
Ratio Decidendi
Judicial precedent binds subsequent cases -- Once a Government Resolution forming the basis of a challenge is quashed by a higher court, the challenge cannot proceed -- Reservation policies must be applied as per settled law and court decisions
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner argued that she secured higher marks than respondent No. 4 and should be placed in the merit list
The respondent relied on the Division Bench judgment quashing the Government Resolution dated 1st August 2018
The Court held the issue is covered by the Division Bench decision and dismissed the petition
Procedural History
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India -- Rule issued and notice waived by respondents -- Matter taken up for final hearing with consent -- Arguments heard from both sides -- Judgment delivered dismissing the petition based on Division Bench precedent
Premium Content
The Indexes are only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now
to access critical case indexes
