- Home
- /
- News Updates
- /
- Can't Permit Correction Of...
Can't Permit Correction Of Purported Mistake In Appointment At Belated Stage: Gujarat High Court
PRIYANKA PREET
25 Feb 2022 8:00 AM GMT
The Gujarat High Court has recently held that a purported mistake in appointment of a candidate, in this case as an Assistant Teacher, cannot be rectified by the authorities at a belated stage. The Court cited a lapse of four and half years since petitioner's appointment in this case, to set aside the State's order terminating his services.Justice Biren Vaishnav held,"taking a stand four and...
The Gujarat High Court has recently held that a purported mistake in appointment of a candidate, in this case as an Assistant Teacher, cannot be rectified by the authorities at a belated stage. The Court cited a lapse of four and half years since petitioner's appointment in this case, to set aside the State's order terminating his services.
Justice Biren Vaishnav held,
"taking a stand four and half years after his appointment was certainly a case correcting a mistake belatedly...even if it is a mistake it was not open for the authorities to so rectify it after four and half years of the petitioner having been appointed to the post."
Reliance was placed on Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited vs. BPL Mobile Cellular Ltd., where the Apex Court held: The mistake, if any, was sought to be rectified after a long period; at least after a period of three years. When a mistake is not rectified for a long period, the same, in law, may not be treated to be one.
In the present case, the petitioner had challenged a communication of 2019 which cancelled his appointment for the post of an Assistant Teacher.
Respondent No. 1, vide an advertisement, invited applications for the post of an Assistant Teacher in December 2004. Accordingly, the Petitioner was placed first during the selection process. The decision was taken basis a certificate produced by the Petitioner from the Gujarat State Basketball Association which confirmed that he had played in the state level basketball competition. Due to this, he was awarded extra marks and in February 2005, he was issued an appointment order.
However, in April 2009, the Commissioner of Mid-Day meal schemes and schools found that the Petitioner was not entitled to the extra marks and therefore, issued a termination order. Thereafter, the Petitioner challenged the order and succeeded before the Tribunal. In the appeal, however, the Petitioner failed and the State by the impugned order of 2019 confirmed that the Petitioner could not have been appointed.
The primary contention of the Petitioner was that his appointment could not be cancelled after four years. Further, in the proceedings before the Tribunal, the person second in line after the Petitioner had given up his right to claim appointment. However, the Respondent-Authority, per contra, contended that the certificate ought not to have been taken into account during the selection process and to that end the mistake should have been rectified.
The Court stated that even if it were to permit the authorities to make a correction belatedly, the certificate presented by the Petitioner was legitimate and not obtained fraudulently. Even if the marks were to be deducted, the person second in line had given up his claim while the person third in line had fewer marks than the Petitioner.
Keeping in view these facts and precedents, the Bench set aside the impugned communication and held that no mistake or illegality had been committed.
Case Title: KIRITKUMAR RAVJIBHAI SHARMA Versus PRINCIPAL/TRUSTEE SARASWATI KADAVNI MANDAL
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 58
Case No.: C/SCA/1499/2020
Click Here To Read/Download Judgment
