Gujarat High CourtDigviyajsinh Mahendrasinh Chavda & vs State Of Gujarat & 5 on 5 February, 2015Author:K.M.ThakerBench:K.M.ThakerC/SCA/13857/2014                                 ORDER




         IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
            SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13857 of 2014
                                  With
            SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15057 of 2014
                                  With
            SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14849 of 2014
                                  With
            SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14330 of 2014
                                  With
            SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14331 of 2014
                                  With
            SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15805 of 2014
                                  With
            SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16620 of 2014
                                  With
            SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16365 of 2014
                                  With
             SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1100 of 2015
                                  With
             SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1141 of 2015
                                  With
             SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2125 of 2015
                                  With
                    CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 193 of 2015
                                   In
            SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14849 of 2014
                                  With
                    CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 196 of 2015
                                   In
            SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14330 of 2014
================================================================
      DIGVIYAJSINH MAHENDRASINH CHAVDA & 10....Petitioner(s)
                            Versus
              STATE OF GUJARAT & 5....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR. HJ KARATHIYA, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 - 11
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 1


                                Page 1 of 15
          C/SCA/13857/2014                                      ORDER



MR DG SHUKLA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================

        CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER

                               Date : 05/02/2015


                                ORAL ORDER1.     The above captioned petitions are preferred

against the notification dated 25.09.2014 issued

by the respondent-Commission.2.     After      the       petitions       came   to     be   filed,   or

around that time, the Commission had, on its own,

undertaken the exercise of correcting the list/

notification           dated     25.09.2014        and     revised      the

said    list       /    result     declared        vide    commission's

notification dated 25.09.2014.3.     The said entire exercise was undertaken by

the Commission on its own and not under any order

of the Court or at the suggestion of the Court,

much less under the direction by the Court.Page 2 of 15C/SCA/13857/2014                                          ORDER4.     The Commission, by undertaking such exercise,

on its own decision, revised the list / result

notified          by        its     vide           Notification            dated

23.09.2014         and      on    its    own       revised        the    list    /

result     and       prepared        new      (i.e.        revised       list    /

result).5.     During the hearing of the group of petitions,

GPSC informed the Court about its said action.

Therefore,           in     one      of        the     above        mentioned

petitions         i.e.       Special         Civil     Application          No.

15805 of 2014, order dated 13.01.2015, came to be

passed, whereby the commission was permitted to

open the sealed cover which contained the revised

list    i.e.       the      list    /     result       dated       25.09.2014

which was revised by the respondent commission on

its     own       (and       not      under          any        direction       or

suggestion by the Court) and to place it on the

record of the petition. The said order in Special

Civil     Application              No.       15805         of     2014     dated

13.01.2015 reads thus:-Page 3 of 15C/SCA/13857/2014                        ORDER1.   Mr.Shukla, learned advocate for the GPSC
submitted that after publication of the select
list, GPSC had undertaken certain exercise as a
result of which, the impugned select list has
been revised.2.   He further submitted and clarified that in
view of pendency of the petition and certain
restraint orders passed by the Court, which are
in operation, GPSC has not implemented the
revised list and has not declared/published the
said list.3.    In this background, learned advocate for
the GPSC prayed for permission to open the sealed
cover and to place the revised list on record,
with clarification that until any fresh order is
passed by the Court, GPSC or the Government will
not act upon and will not operate the revised
list.4.   Learned advocates for the petitioners and
respondents submitted that they do not have any
objection if the respondent-GPSC is permitted to
open the sealed cover and place the revised list
on record of the petition, subject to the
condition that it should not be operated.5.   In view of the submissions by learned
advocate for the respondent-GPSC and learned
advocates   for   other   respondents  and   the
petitioners, the respondent-GPSC is permitted to
open the sealed cover and to place the revised
list on record of the petition.6.   It is clarified that this order is passed
only to ensure that GPSC is not faced with
allegation of breach of earlier orders passed by
the Court and also to examine the steps taken by
the GPSC after publication of earlier impugned
select list.7.   Permission    is   granted    with   further
clarification that revised list will not be acted
upon and/or implemented unless any order granting
such permission is passed by the Court.Page 4 of 15C/SCA/13857/2014                                ORDER8.   The list shall be placed on record under an
       affidavit and copies thereof shall be served to
       the learned advocates for the respondents and
       petitioners. This Process shall be completed on
       or before 15.01.2015.For the said limited purpose, the matter shall be
       listed on the Cause List of 15.01.2015, but
       hearing shall be on 16.01.2015."6.     Thereafter,             the        respondent      Commission

circulated             Civil      Application          being      Civil

Application No. 415 of 2015. In the said Civil

Application,            the    respondent        Commission    prayed,

inter alia, that:-"5(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to modify the
      order dated 13.01.2015 and be further to permit the
      applicant Commission to publish the revised result of
      the examination in the Official Gazette in two parts
      and to display the revised result on its Notice Board
      as provided under the said Rules before placing on
      record under an affidavit and serving copies thereof
      to the learned advocates and serving copies thereof
      to the learned advocates for the original respondents
      and petitioner and the time to complete the said
      process may be extended till 27.01.2015 in the
      interest of justice."7.     After considering the said application, the

Court passed order dated 21.01.2015, which reads

thus:-Page 5 of 15C/SCA/13857/2014                                 ORDER1.Heard Mr. Shukla, learned advocate for the Gujarat
Public Service Commission ("GPSC" for short) Mr.
Majmudar, learned advocate for Mr. Kuntal Joshi,
learned advocate for the respondent Nos. respondent
Nos. 1 to 5, Mr. P.K. Jani, learned Additional
Advocate General for respondent No. 6 and Mr.
Upadhyaya, learned advocate for the respondent No. 7.2. Having regard to the fact that certain other
petitions involving similar issue are also filed and
such other matters are being considered along with
Special Civil Application No. 15805 of 2014 (wherein
this application is taken out) learned advocates
appearing in the said other matters are also heard
with regard to request made in this application.3. Accordingly Mr. Yagnik, learned advocate     whose
application (on behalf of selected candidates)
seeking permission to join the proceedings and Mr.
Mehta, learned Senior Counsel have also been heard.4. In present application           the   applicant   GPSC    has
prayed, inter alia, that:-5(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to allow this          Civil
Application. (B) Your Lordships may be pleased to modify the
Order dated 13.01.2015 and be further pleased to permit the
Applicant Commission to publish the Revised Result of the
examination in the official gazette in two parts and to display
the Revised Result on its notice board as provided under the
said Rules before placing on record under an affidavit and
serving copies thereof to the learned advocates for the
original respondents and petitioners and the time to complete
the said process may be extended till 27.1.2015 in the interest
of justice."5. The above quoted request is made by the applicant
in light of and in pursuance of the order dated
13.1.2015 passed in SCA No. 15805 of 2014 by the
Court. The said order was passed after hearing
learned advocates Mr. Yagnik and learned Senior
Counsel Mr. Mehta and having regard to the fact that
all learned advocates had declared that they had no
objection if the revised list was placed on record of
the petition provided it would not be implemented.The said order dated 13.1.2015 reads thus:-1.Mr.Shukla, learned advocate for the GPSC submitted that after
publication of the select list, GPSC had undertaken certain
exercise as a result of which, the impugned select list hasPage 6 of 15C/SCA/13857/2014                               ORDERbeen revised.2.He further submitted and clarified that in view of pendency
of the petition and certain restraint orders passed by the
Court, which are in operation, GPSC has not implemented the
revised list and has not declared/published the said list. 3.In
this background, learned advocate for the GPSC prayed for
permission to open the sealed cover and to place the revised
list on record, with clarification that until any fresh order
is passed by the Court, GPSC or the Government will not act
upon and will not operate the revised list.4.Learned advocates for the petitioners and respondents
submitted that they do not have any objection if the
respondent-GPSC is permitted to open the sealed cover and place
the revised list on record of the petition, subject to the
condition that it should not be operated.5.In view of the submissions by learned advocate for          the
respondent-GPSC and learned advocates for other respondents   and
the petitioners, the respondent-GPSC is permitted to open     the
sealed cover and to place the revised list on record of       the
petition6.It is clarified that this order is passed only to ensure that
GPSC is not faced with allegation of breach of earlier orders
passed by the Court and also to examine the steps taken by the
GPSC after publication of earlier impugned select list.7.Permission is granted with further clarification that revised
list will not be acted upon and/or implemented unless any order
granting such permission is passed by the Court.8.The list shall be placed on record under an affidavit     and
copies thereof shall be served to the learned advocates for the
respondents and petitioners. This Process shall be completed on
or before 15.01.2015. For the said limited purpose, the matter
shall be listed on the Cause List of 15.01.2015, but hearing
shall be on 16.01.2015."6. After said order dated 13.1.2015 came to be
passed, the applicant GPSC has taken out present
application citing the provisions contained in Rule
21 of the Assistant Conservator of Forests / Range
Forest Officer's Competitive Examination Rules, 2008.7. So as to justify and support the request made in
the application, the applicant has averred and stated
that:-"2. The applicant Commission submits that as provided under
 Rule 21 of the Assistant Conservator of Forests / Range Forest
 Officer's Competitive Examination Rules, 2008, the Applicant
 Commission is required first to publish the result of the
 examination in the Official Gazette in two parts and furtherPage 7 of 15C/SCA/13857/2014                                 ORDERrequired to display the result on its Notice Board.3. The applicant commission is, therefore, required to publish
the Revised Result in the Official Gazette in two parts and
display the Revised Result on its Notice Board as provided in
the said Rules before placing on record under an Affidavit and
serving copies thereof to the learned Advocates for the
original respondents and petitioners on or before 15.1.2015 as
directed by this Hon'ble Court.4.The applicant commission, therefore, submits that it would be
in the interest of justice and fitness of things that the
applicant commission be permitted to publish the revised result
of the examination in the official gazette in two parts and to
display the Result on its Notice Board as provided under the
said Rules before placing on record under an Affidavit and
serving copies thereof to the learned Advocates for the
original respondents and petitioners and the time to complete
the said process may be extended till 27.1.2015 in the interest
of justice"8. Before proceeding further it is relevant and
necessary to mention that earlier, vide order dated
13.1.2015 the Court had, subject to the conditions
and clarifications mentioned in the order and GPSC's
stipulation recorded in the order, permitted GPSC to
open the select list and place it on record of the
petition.8.1 However, in view of the provisions contained
under Rule 21 of the Assistant Conservator of Forests
/ Range Forest Officer's Competitive Examination
Rules, 2008, the applicant GPSC has taken out present
application with above quoted request.9. At the time of hearing of this application, Mr.
Jani, learned Additional Advocate General, Mr. Mehta,
learned   Senior  Counsel,   Mr.   Majmudar,  learned
advocate for Mr. Kuntal Joshi, learned advocate for
the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and Mr. Upadhyaya, learned
advocate for respondent No. 7 have declared and
submitted that they do not have any objection if the
request made in the application is granted.10.   However,    Mr.   Yagnik,    learned   advocate
representing the candidates whose names are in the
select list which is already published by the GPSC
(and which is the subject matter in the application)
raised certain objections and expressed certain
reservation, on various grounds; mainly on the ground
that the petition itself is premature and there is noPage 8 of 15C/SCA/13857/2014                           ORDERreason or justification for GPSC to revise the select
list applying principles and ratio to the judgment by
Apex Court in case ofUnion of India vs. Ramesh Ram
and others(2010 [7] SCC 234)11. Learned advocate for the GPSC and learned
Additional Advocate General as well as Mr. Mehta,
learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Mr. Majmudar, learned
advocate for Mr. Kuntal Joshi, learned advocate for
the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and Mr. Upadhyaya, learned
advocate for respondent No. 7 have submitted that the
said objection and contention can be considered at
the time when the revised select list is placed on
record after its publication and when it is examined
by the Court, however at this stage when, the
applicant GPSC is merely seeking permission to
publish the list, it would not be necessary to
examine the said issue and the objections against the
revised select list.12. The Court is of the view that there is substance
in the submission made by learned Additional Advocate
General and learned advocates for the respondents and
learned advocate for the applicant.13. Having regard to the facts of the case and the
provision which the applicant GPSC has relied and
also having regard to the fact that under order dated
13.1.2015 the Court, subject to the condition and
stipulation   recorded   therein,   already   granted
permission to GPSC to place on record the revised
list and that the said order was passed with consent
of the learned advocates, relief prayed for in
present application is granted.14. However, permission is granted subject to the
condition that the select list will not be operated
and implemented by GPSC until any other or further
order is passed by the Court and the condition that
all objections and contentions on behalf of the
concerned candidates (i.e. those whose names are
already published in the select list and those whose
names are not included in the select list) are kept
open and they will be considered at the time of
hearing of the petition.15. In that view of the matter        the   order   dated
13.1.2015 stands partly modified.Page 9 of 15C/SCA/13857/2014                                  ORDER16. Mr. Shukla, learned advocate for the applicant
     submitted that GPSC will complete necessary process
     today itself by forwarding the list for purpose of
     publication. In view of the said submission, it is
     expected that the applicant GPSC will complete the
     process of getting the list published in the Gazette
     by 23.01.2015. Accordingly the Civil Application is
     disposed of."8.     After        the      said         order,    the    respondent

Commission issued notification dated 23.01.2015

and thereunder declared the revised list / result

(which is subject to conditions mentioned in the

order dated 21.01.2015).9.     The said notification dated 23.01.2015 was

subsequently placed on record of the petitions.10. When the said notification was read in the

Court, it was noticed that the Commission had not

presented         the       facts       accurately    in   the     said

notification inasmuch as it was mentioned in the

said notification dated 23.01.2015 that "... has

been revised as per oral order of the Hon'ble

High Court in Special Civil Application No. 15805Page 10 of 15C/SCA/13857/2014                                          ORDERof    2014         dated        21.01.2015...".              (emphasize

supplied)11. The said statement in the notification dated

23.01.2015          mentioned,            and          thereby       created

impression,        that     the      notification           /     list   was

revised because of the order by the Court and as

per Court's order           i.e. order dated 21.01.2015.

Whereas    in      fact    the      GPSC         had    undertaken       that

exercise on its own and even before the hearing

of the petitions commenced before the Court and

long before the order dated 21.01.2015.12. The said statement was incorrect (inasmuch as

the   commission          had   revised           the    notification      /

list on its own and even before the petitioners

were heard by the Court). The list / result was

not revised under any order of the Court or even

at the suggestion of the Court, much less under

any direction by the Court.Page 11 of 15C/SCA/13857/2014                                     ORDER13. Therefore,              the      respondent-Commission                 was

directed to delete the said statement and rectify

the   misrepresentation               of      the   facts    by     issuing

proper corrigendum.14. Thereafter, the respondent-Commission issued

corrigendum dated 04.02.2015.15. In the said corrigendum again the respondent

Commission          has     made       statement          which     is     not

accurate and is misleading and gives impression

as if the Correction / revision in the list /

result and notification dated 25.09.2014 was made

pursuant to i.e. in view of and on account of and

as per the order passed in Civil Application No.

415   of        2015,       whereas           by    the     order        dated

21.01.2015 in Civil Application No. 415 of 2015,

the   Court        had      merely       allowed      the    respondent-

Commission to declare the revised list, which was

already prepared by the Commission on its own.16. In      the       corrigendum           dated    04.02.2015,           thePage 12 of 15C/SCA/13857/2014                                       ORDERCommission has again mentioned that "... has been

revised pursuant to Special Civil Application No.

Civil    Application             No.    415        of   2015   in   Special

Civil Application No. 15805 of 2014 filed by the

Commission before the High Court of Gujarat with

a prayer to permit the Commission to publish the

revised list..."17. The said statement in the corrigendum gives

the     impression          as     if     the       notification        dated

25.09.2014           and     corrected             on    16.10.2014       was

revised in view of and pursuant to order dated

21.01.2015 in Civil Application No. 415 of 2015,

whereas       the       fact       is    otherwise         inasmuch      the

Commission has revised the list / result and the

notification dated 25.09.2014 on its own.18. Therefore,              last    chance         is   granted     to    the

Commission to rectify its mistake and incorrect

statement in its notification and corrigendum.19. If the mistake and incorrect statements arePage 13 of 15C/SCA/13857/2014                                      ORDERnot   corrected            on   or    before        07.02.2015,       then

appropriate           actions        against         the     responsible

officer      will          be   taken       for     making      incorrect

statements in the Notification dated 23.01.2015

and in the corrigendum dated 04.02.2015.20. The Commission shall clearly mention in the

fresh corrigendum that the list / result and the

notification dated 25.09.2014 were corrected by

its   own and          not in        view of        and /    or not    on

account     of      and/or      not     under       any    direction   or

suggestion or order of the Court.21. The Commission shall also clarify that the

statements in the notification dated 23.01.2015

and the corrigendum dated 04.02.2014 are deleted

and should be treated as deleted.22.   The    Commission          shall           specifically     mention

that the revision is effected by the Commission

on its own and it will subject to the orders byPage 14 of 15C/SCA/13857/2014                                          ORDERthis      Court.         For     the      said         purpose,     time      until

07.01.2015 is granted.23. At the request of learned advocate for GPSC,

though time was granted to file affidavit for

certain unforeseen and unavoidable circumstances,

he could not file affidavit today and prayed for

more time, i.e. until 9.2.2015.24.      However, in view of the submissions by other

learned advocates, learned advocate for GPSC was

requested          to         make    submissions          with      regard      to

other       aspects            and    contentions              raised   by      the

petitioners.             Accordingly,              learned       advocate       for

GPSC commenced his further submissions.                                      He has

not       completed             his     submissions.                 Therefore,

hearing         of       group        petitions           is    adjourned        to

6.2.2015.(K.M.THAKER, J.)
GirishPage 15 of 15