THE GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION vs VAISHALI MAHENDRAKUMAR GOHIL W/O HASMUKHKUMAR MAKWANA
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/LPA/1026/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1026 of 2022
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION/12983/2020
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1028 of 2022
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1366 of 2021
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1029 of 2022
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1739 of 2021
==========================================================
THE GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
Versus
VAISHALI MAHENDRAKUMAR GOHIL W/O HASMUKHKUMAR MAKWANA
& ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS MANISHA LAVKUMAR SHAH, SR. ADV. with MR HS MUNSHAW(495)
for the Appellant(s) No. 1
ADVANCE COPY SERVED TO MS VAISHNAVI VERMA,
ASST.GOVERNMENT PLEADER/PP for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR BHUVNESH GAHLOT(10286) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 10,11,12,13,14,15,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J. L. ODEDRA
Date : 07/05/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA)
1. This appeal is preferred challenging the order of the
learned Single Judge by which he has allowed the writ
petition by placing reliance on the decision of this Court
Page 1 of 8
Uploaded by EZHURHASSAN SUDHIR ACHUTHAN(HC00192) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:14:35 IST 2026
C/LPA/1026/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2026
passed in Tammanaben Ashokkumar Desai vs. Shetal
Amrutlal Nishar in LPA No.1910 of 2019 and allied matters
on 05.08.2020 and has proceeded to quash the select list
prepared by respondent No.1 and has directed that the
select list prepared by the respondent No.1 be recast and a
fresh list be prepared ignoring the principles of vertical
and horizontal reservations and considering the candidates
of reserved categories in the category of General when they
have been selected as being more meritorious than the
General category candidates.
2. These facts are not in dispute.
3. On 16.08.2018, online applications were invited by the
Gujarat State Public Service Commission (GPSC) for
recruiting 56 posts of Child Development Project Officer
Class-II.
4. On 04.11.2018, a preliminary test was conducted and
persons who had passed the test, were also subjected to
viva voce on 17.07.2019.
5. On 27.08.2019, a final select list was published in respect
of the 56 posts.
6. The respondents herein i.e. Vaishali M. Gohil was wait
listed at Sr.No.2 in the Scheduled Caste Category,
Page 2 of 8
Uploaded by EZHURHASSAN SUDHIR ACHUTHAN(HC00192) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:14:35 IST 2026
C/LPA/1026/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2026
Ms.Jignaben Jid was found to be unsuccessful, Macwan
Chetnaben was wait listed at Sr.No.4 in the SEBC
category.
7. On 06.09.2019, the GPSC recommended 56 candidates to
be appointed to the advertised 56 posts and on 07.10.2019
appointment orders were also issued.
8. Subsequently, in view of certain posts not being filled up,
two wait listed candidates, i.e. candidate at Sr.No.1 of
General Category and candidate at Sr.N.1 of SEBC
category were appointed. Thus, the entire advertised 56
posts were filled up.
9. On 15.07.2019, one more notification was issued by GPSC
calling for online applications for recruitment to the post of
Child Development Project Officer Class-II was issued and
this notification was to fill up only two posts.
10. The respondents herein applied pursuant to the said
notification but were unable to get through the test. In
other words, the respondents failed in their attempt to
become eligible for the recruitment which was issued in
2019 i.e., a year after the issuance of the 2018 notification.
11. These set of facts, by themselves, conclusively establish
that the respondents accepted the recruitment that had
Page 3 of 8
Uploaded by EZHURHASSAN SUDHIR ACHUTHAN(HC00192) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:14:35 IST 2026
C/LPA/1026/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2026
been made pursuant to the Notification dated 16.08.2018.
These set of facts would also indicate that they also
proceeded to participate in the subsequent Notification
dated 15.07.2019. To put it differently, the respondents did
not find any illegality in the conduct of recruitment under
both the Notifications in as much as they did not challenge
them alleging any irregularity or illegality.
12. As the matter stood thus, on 29.11.2019, i.e about five
months after the 2nd recruitment Notification was issued,
a learned Single Judge of this Court upheld the
Government Resolution dated 01.08.2018, which contained
modalities for applying the reservation for the candidates
applying for the recruitment.
13. This order of the learned Single Judge was challenged in
LPA No.1910 of 2019 in which the Division Bench reversed
the order of the learned Single Judge and quashed the
Government Resolution dated 01.08.2018. The Division
Bench also proceeded to issue certain directions, as to the
manner in which the reservations are to be applied. The
State accepted this order and has admittedly modified the
manner in which it applies reservation in respect of
recruitment and issued a fresh Government Resolution in
Page 4 of 8
Uploaded by EZHURHASSAN SUDHIR ACHUTHAN(HC00192) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:14:35 IST 2026
C/LPA/1026/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2026
this regard.
14. The respondents herein, thereafter, filed a writ petition in
respect of the first recruitment Notification dated
16.08.2018. They contended that the manner in which the
reservation had been applied to this first recruitment
notification was contrary to the decision rendered in LPA
No.1910 of 2019 and, therefore, the entire select list was to
be recast.
15. The Learned Single Judge, by placing reliance on the
judgement rendered that the Division Bench pursuant to
the Division Bench by Tammanaben Ashokkumar Desai
(supra) has also allowed the writ petition and has directed
the select list to be recast in terms of the direction issued
by the Division Bench.
16. The GPSC being aggrieved by this order has preferred this
appeal.
17. It is clear from the above that the respondents did apply
under the first recruitment Notification dated 16.08.2018.
It is also clear from the above set of facts that the two of
them were wait listed at Sr.No.2 in Scheduled Caste
category and at Sr.No.4 in the SEBC category. The
respondents did not challenge the manner in which the
Page 5 of 8
Uploaded by EZHURHASSAN SUDHIR ACHUTHAN(HC00192) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:14:35 IST 2026
C/LPA/1026/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2026
reservation was applied and the manner in which they
were placed at wait list No.2 and wait list No.4 in the
Scheduled Caste and SEBC category respectively.
18. Admittedly, recruitment pursuant to this Notification was
complete and all the advertised 56 posts were also filled
up. The respondents did not challenge the filling up of
these 56 posts.
19. The respondents, thereafter, went on to apply under the
second notification dated 15.07.2019 and unfortunately,
they were unsuccessful in this second Notification.
20. These set of facts would, therefore, indicate that the
respondents accepted that there was no illegality in the
manner in which the recruitment was undertaken under
the first Notification dated 16.08.2018.
21. In fact, in law, it can be assumed that even if there was
some irregularity or illegality, they acquiesced to the said
illegality. The fact that the respondents proceeded to apply
pursuant to the second recruitment Notification, which
was published nearly a year thereafter on 15.07.2019, also
confirms the fact that they had given up on their rights to
make any claim in respect of the first recruitment on
16.08.2018.
Page 6 of 8
Uploaded by EZHURHASSAN SUDHIR ACHUTHAN(HC00192) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:14:35 IST 2026
C/LPA/1026/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2026
22. In light of these indisputable facts, in our view, they had
no right to challenge, the manner in which the recruitment
was made pursuant to the first recruitment Notification
dated 16.08.2018.
23. Any decision rendered by this Court as regards the manner
in which the reservations were to be applied which
occurred after the recruitment was finalized will obviously
not ennure to the benefit to the respondents or revive their
right to challenge the process of selection to which they
had acquiesced to. In other words, they had accepted the
mode of applying reservation as per the procedure
prevailing then.
24. In our view, the respondents having not challenged the
manner of applying the reservation under the first
Notification and thereafter, applying under the second
Notification have lost all rights to challenge the mode in
which the reservations were applied under the first
Notification.
25. The order of the learned Single Judge has not even
considered this aspect of the matter. It is, however, argued
that this aspect was not raised fr the learned Single Judge
to be considered.
Page 7 of 8
Uploaded by EZHURHASSAN SUDHIR ACHUTHAN(HC00192) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:14:35 IST 2026
C/LPA/1026/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2026
26. The conclusion that we have arrived at above is based on
admitted facts and therefore, whether the said contentions
were raised or not before the learned Single Judge would
make no difference, as the issues we have considered go to
the root of the matter.
27. The above set of facts being glaring, which would clearly
disentitle the respondents to challenge the manner in
which the reservation was applied, compels us to reverse
the order of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the
order of the learned Single Judge is set aside. As a
consequence, the writ appeals are allowed.
(N.S.SANJAY GOWDA,J)
(J. L. ODEDRA, J)
SUDHIR
Page 8 of 8
Uploaded by EZHURHASSAN SUDHIR ACHUTHAN(HC00192) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:14:35 IST 2026