Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sangada Hansaben Malabhai, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 21.04.2018 passed by the Mamlatdar and Executive Magistrate, Zhalod, District Dahod (respondent No. 2), appointing respondent No. 3 as Administrator-cum-Cook. The petitioner had applied pursuant to an advertisement for the post and was placed at serial No. 6 in the merit list, while respondent No. 3 was at serial No. 4. The petitioner claimed she had secured 68% in graduation, whereas respondent No. 3 had only 48.94% in T.Y.B.A. The petitioner alleged that the merit list was manipulated as she was shown as 'pass' instead of her actual percentage, and that candidates above her, including respondent No. 3, did not possess higher qualifications. The court observed that this was a classic example of outright favouritism by the then Mamlatdar, who appointed respondent No. 3 despite her lower merit. The court noted that the Mamlatdar had no authority to deviate from the merit list. The court quashed the appointment order dated 21.04.2018 and directed respondent No. 2 to issue a fresh appointment order in favour of the petitioner within four weeks, considering her merit position. The court also directed the State to consider taking appropriate action against the then Mamlatdar for the favouritism.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Public Employment - Favouritism in Appointment - Article 226 of Constitution of India - The court examined the appointment of respondent No. 3 as Administrator-cum-Cook despite her lower merit position (serial No. 4) compared to the petitioner (serial No. 6) who had higher graduation percentage (68% vs 48.94%). The court found outright favouritism by the then Mamlatdar and quashed the appointment order, directing fresh appointment based on the merit list. Held that public appointments must be made strictly in accordance with merit and any deviation amounts to arbitrariness (Paras 5-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appointment of respondent No. 3 as Administrator-cum-Cook by the Mamlatdar, despite her being at serial No. 4 in the merit list, was arbitrary and amounted to favouritism, and whether the petitioner, who was at serial No. 6 but claimed higher qualifications, was entitled to relief.
Final Decision
The court allowed the petition, quashed the order dated 21.04.2018 passed by respondent No. 2 appointing respondent No. 3, and directed respondent No. 2 to issue a fresh appointment order in favour of the petitioner within four weeks. The court also directed the State to consider taking appropriate action against the then Mamlatdar.
Law Points
- Article 226 of Constitution of India
- Favouritism in public appointments
- Merit list manipulation
- Quashing of appointment order
- Direction to appoint based on merit
