NILESHBHAI PRAVINBHAI PATEL V. COMMISSIONER OF MUNICIPALITIES

SCA/9555/2022

AI Insights

The case revolves around the recruitment process followed by the Modasa Municipality for various posts, which was challenged by private respondents alleging irregularities. The initial appointments were made by the Municipality without waiting for the Collector's approval, contrary to government circulars. After several legal proceedings, the Regional Municipal Commissioner set aside the recruitment, a decision upheld by the Commissioner of Municipalities. The petitioners, who were appointed, challenged these decisions in the High Court, arguing that the orders were without proper reasoning and did not consider individual merits. The court, however, upheld the decisions of the lower authorities, emphasizing the non-compliance with procedural requirements and the lack of qualifications in many appointed candidates.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 725891 (HC-GUJARAT)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 17-06-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Madhya Pradesh Industries Limited v. Union of India, Dr. K.M. Shah v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, State of Odisha v. Sulekha Chandra Pradhan
• Laws Referred To: Gujarat Municipalities Act, Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: UTKARS SHARMA; HRIDAY BUCH; PREMAL JOSHI
• Assessee Lawyers: G M JOSHI; HARIBHAI PATEL
• Keywords: Void ab initio; Recruitment irregularities; Municipal appointments; Government circulars
• Section: 37

Judgement Text

"C/SCA/9555/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9555 of 2022 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV ========================================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ? ========================================================== NILESHBHAI PRAVINBHAI PATEL Versus COMMISSIONER OF MUNICIPALITIES ========================================================== Appearance: MR.G.M.JOSHI, LD. SENIOR ADVOCATE with MR HARIBHAI J PATEL(9810) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,10,11,12,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 MR.UTKARSH SHARMA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MR HRIDAY BUCH(2372) for the Respondent(s) No. 10,11,13,14,4,5,6,7,9 MR PREMAL R JOSHI(1327) for the Respondent(s) No. 3 for the Respondent(s) No. 1,12,2,8 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV Date : 17/06/2022 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 03.06.2021 passed by the Regional Commissioner, Gandhinagar Zone, in Review/02/2018 confirmed by the order of the Commissioner of Municipalities in Page 1 of 28 C/SCA/9555/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2022 Appeal No.37 of 2021 filed by the order of 07.05.2022. 2. Facts in brief would indicate that the Modasa Municipality-respondent no.3 by two advertisements dated 07.12.2011 and 18.01.2012 invited applications for 13 vacancies on 11 posts viz. of Fire Officer, Town Planner, Technical Assistant, Computer Operator, Sanitary Inspector, Community Organizer, Wire man- cum-Electrician, Driver, Cleaner, Clerk-cum-Computer Operator and Fireman respectively. 2.1 The petitioners pursuant to their applications for certain posts which are the subject matter of this petition, applied for appointment. Personal interviews were held in March 2012 and the petitioners were issued appointments orders by the President of the Municipality. These appointment orders were issued pending approval of the Collector. The same was done without waiting for the Collector’s approval. The private respondents were aggrieved by the selection of the petitioners on the respective posts Page 2 of 28 C/SCA/9555/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2022 and therefore made representations and complaints to the authorities alleging serious irregularities in the appointment. Necessary details were called for by the Collector. Apart from making representations to the Collector and other respondents, the petitioners preferred Special Civil Application No.16630 of 2012 and allied petitions. This Court by an order dated 14.08.2013, disposed of the petitions clarifying that it will be open for the petitioners to file further application before the concerned respondent authorities. The respondents therefore filed appeals viz. Appeal Nos.1, 2 and 3 of 2013 before the Collector, Aravalli. 2.2 By an order dated 11.08.2014, the Collector heard the appeals and set aside the recruitments done pursuant to the advertisements in question. Aggrieved by the order of the Collector dated 11.08.2014, the present petitioners filed Special Civil Application No.11523 of 2014, while the rest preferred Revision Application No.5 of 2014 before the Secretary, Urban Development Department. Page 3 of 28 C/SCA/9555/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2022 Pending the hearing of Special Civil Application No.11523 of 2014, the revision of some of the petitioners was decided by order dated 08.05.2015. The Revisional Authority set aside the order of the Collector dated 11.08.2014 and remanded the matter for a fresh decision in accordance with the observations made therein. 2.3 Aggrieved by the order of the Revisional Authority dated 08.05.2015 the private respondents preferred Special Civil Application No.13808 of 2015. Both Special Civil Application Nos.11523 of 2014 and 13808 of 2015 were heard together. This Court by an order dated 23.01.2018 while disposing of both the petitions directed the Collector to take up the matter for reconsideration and rehearing and pass fresh reasoned and a speaking order. It is in context of these proceedings that the Regional Municipal Commissioner who was conferred with the powers by a notification of 30.07.2018, decided the Review Application No.2 of 2018 by the impugned order of 03.06.2021. By the aforesaid impugned order, the Page 4 of 28 C/SCA/9555/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2022 Regional Municipal Commissioner held that the entire procedure of recruitment undertaken by the Municipality was not in accordance with the government circulars. The recruitment was therefore contrary to law and the recruitment and the appointments of the petitioners therefore were set aside. On a challenge made by the petitioners in the appeal, the petitioners failed. Hence this petition. 3. Mr.G.M.Joshi learned Senior Advocate appearing with Mr.Haribhai Patel learned advocate for the petitioners would submit that if the orders of the Regional Commissioner dated 03.06.2021 is compared with the order in Appeal dated 07.05.2022, the order is without reasons. Perusal of the operative part of both the orders in Revision and in appeal would indicate that except for a few ornamental changes in the reasoning, the Appellate Authority had confirmed the order of the Reviewing Authority and therefore the order suffers from the vice of being an order without reasons. The same should therefore be set aside. Page 5 of 28 C/SCA/9555/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2022 3.1 Mr.Joshi learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners would extensively read the order of the reviewing authority wherein the authority has set aside the sequence of dates and events as canvassed by the petitioners, the contentions raised by the respondents viz. private respondents and the Chief Officer and would submit that after reproduction of those submissions, the order only indicates that since the recruitment was carried out without following the government circulars in question, the entire recruitment on all 13 posts is set aside. 3.2 Mr.Joshi would submit that the issue that was a subject matter of consideration before the authorities was only in respect of the posts involved in Appeals No.1, 2 and 3 of 2013 respectively and therefore to set aside the entire recruitment on all posts and hold that the candidates other than the one of the appeals in question were also not qualified for appointment without examining each individual case on merits could not have been done by virtue of the impugned orders. Page 6 of 28 C/SCA/9555/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2022 3.3 He further submitted that the appeals in question involved only the posts ‘Community Organizer’, ‘Drivers’ and ‘Wireman’ and therefore without examining the merits of the candidates/petitioners who were otherwise appointed on other posts viz. that of Fire Officer, Fireman, Technical Assistant etc. made the order vulnerable on the vice of being without reasons and therefore it should be quashed and set aside. 3.4 Essentially Mr.Joshi would therefore submit that the orders need to be set aside only on the ground of being bereft of reasons and the matter be remanded to the authorities for a fresh consideration. 4. Mr.Hriday Buch learned advocate appearing for the private respondents would submit that the Nagarpalika prior to issuing of the advertisements in the daily newspaper for appointments resolved on 05.12.2011 that for the posts which are sanctioned by the Government, they would be filled in by direct recruitment in accordance with the Recruitment Page 7 of 28 C/SCA/9555/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2022 Rules, for which, they would hold a written examination in accordance with the parameters set out in the resolution of the Nagarpalika. It was in light of this resolution that the advertisement was issued. Despite resolution No.7, a Selection Committee consisting of five members was formed, candidates were directly called for an interview and appointments were issued. He would rely on the contentions made by the respondents before the orders impugned in the petition and submit that one Ashwin Kadia was appointed on the post of Computer Operator who was related to one Narendra Kadia who abstained from meeting, however, two other committee members gave marks and therefore the entire selection was vitiated by favoritism and nepotism. 4.1 He would submit that even the President of Municipality was removed after following the provisions under Section 37 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act. Inviting the Court’s attention to a letter dated 30.03.2012, Mr.Buch would submit that Page 8 of 28 C/SCA/9555/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2022 after the appointments were made, the process could not have culminated into getting the posting orders without giving approval of Collector as was sought for vide letter dated 30.03.2012. He would submit that what was expected of the Municipality was to follow the circulars of the Government which indicated that only the Chief Officer was empowered to issue appointment orders and therefore without waiting for the approval of the Collector it was not proper for the President to exercise his jurisdiction and issue orders of appointment. The authorities below by the impugned orders therefore held that the entire process of recruitment was vitiated as the procedure envisaged in these circulars was not followed by the authorities. 4.2 To the submission of Mr.Joshi that the issues in the impugned orders were decided only keeping in mind the appeal nos.1, 2 and 3 of 2013 of the posts in question viz. of Community Organizer, Wire man-cum- Electrician and Driver, according to Mr.Buch was a misconceived submission. He would invite the Page 9 of 28 C/SCA/9555/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2022 attention of the Court to the order of the Collector initially passed on 11.08.2014. Reading the operative part of the order, he would indicate that the Collector had set aside the entire recruitment process being bad. Even when some of the petitioners had approached the Revisional Authority, the proceedings were remanded by the authority by its order of 08.05.2015 opining that since the entire recruitment process was set aside, it was necessary that the issue be reexamined in light of the fact that the order of the collector having been passed without considering the case of candidature of other posts is pending before the High Court under challenge in the other petitions. He would therefore submit that when both, the petitions at the hands of the present petitioners and those of the revision applicants/respondents were heard together, they were disposed of with a direction to the Collector to decide all issues raised by all parties taking into account the applicable rules, resolutions and the policy. The nature of inquiry therefore before the authorities by which the Page 10 of 28 C/SCA/9555/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2022 impugned orders are passed was therefore not restricted only to the appeals or to the entire process of selection which was rightly examined by the authorities whose orders are under challenge and the recruitment was set aside. 4.3 As far as submission of Mr.Joshi that no reasons were assigned in the impugned order dated 07.05.2022 even while confirming the order of the Regional Commissioner dated 03.06.2022, Mr.Buch would rely on the decision in case of Madhya Pradesh Industries Limited v. Union of India and others reported in AIR 1966 SC 671. He would rely on the relevant observations in para 9 of the decision. The decision in the case of Madhya Pradesh (supra) was referred to and relied upon in the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dr.K.M.Shah v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 2004 SCC Online (Guj) 432. He would rely on paragraphs 69 and 70 of the decision. As far as the recruitment and the appointments being void-ab-initio, having been done in violation of the Page 11 of 28 C/SCA/9555/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2022 Rules, Mr.Buch would rely on the decision of the supreme Court in case of State of Odisha and others v. Sulekha Chandra Pradhan reported in 2022 Live Law SC 93. 5. Mr.Premal Joshi learned advocate appearing for the Modasa Nagarpalika would adopt the submissions made by Mr.Buch and in addition thereto would draw the attention of the Court to the reply filed by Shri Sanjay Pandya - the Chief Officer with the Modasa Municipality. He would submit that the Establishment Committee of the Modasa Municipality by resolution No.7 dated 05.12.2007 had taken a decision to hold written examinations. Despite this fact, on 28.12.2012, the Committee passed a resolution opining that for the 13 posts which were advertised, 430 applications have been received and therefore to avoid any injustice to the candidates, it was decided to hold personal interviews in accordance with the resolution dated 14.10.2008, keeping Rule 7(3) in mind. Page 12 of 28 C/SCA/9555/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2022 5.1 Mr.Joshi would further submit that the State through the Urban Housing and Urban Development Department had issued a circular dated 02.08.2000 instructing the Chief Officers of the Municipality that the orders of appointment in accordance with Section 49 of the Municipalities Act be issued under the signature of the Chief Officer. In the case on hand, it was President who without waiting for the approval from the Collector issued orders of appointment. The affidavit sets out the qualifications prescribed for each post, those possessed by the petitioners and how therefore each of them were not qualified for appointment despite which the orders of appointments were issued. 5.2 Mr.Joshi learned Senior Advocate would rely on the decision of this Court in Special Civil Application No.1619 of 2020, particularly para 13 thereof to submit that a mere reproduction of submission and straightway coming to the findings without dealing with the submissions, would amount to not giving of any reasons. Page 13 of 28 C/SCA/9555/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2022 6. Mr.Utkarsh Sharma learned AGP extensively having read the orders of the authorities below would support the reasons assigned in the orders of the Regional Commissioner as well as the Appellate Authority and would submit that having recorded the contentions of the respective parties and having found that the entire process of recruitment was vitiated, there was no reason for the authorities to assign and undertake a detailed exercise of how each candidate was qualified or not. He would invite the observations of this Court in the order dated 23.01.2018 at an interim stage where the Court recorded the submissions of the petitioner recording the contention that it was even the affected persons selected which were to be heard by the Collector and so heard by the authorities in question. The affidavit in reply filed by the State on behalf of the Mamlatdar office of the Commissioner of Municipalities is placed on record. He would submit that though the posts were duly sanctioned by the Commissioner of Municipalities, no proper procedure mentioned in the Page 14 of 28 C/SCA/9555/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2022 circulars of the Government was followed. Resolution dated 04.02.2004 was pressed into service and also the fact that the appointment orders should have been issued by the Chief Officer and not the President. He would submit that in fact, it was for this very reason that in exercise of powers under Section 37(1) of the Gujarat Municipalities Act that the President was removed by the order of 11.01.2013. The authority had independently decided the matter on remand as directed by this Court after hearing the parties. 7. Mr.Sharma submitted that it is incorrect for the petitioners to contend that having continued in service for so long, it is not open for the State to set aside their appointments. He would submit that it was at the very initial stage i.e. immediately two years after the appointments were made that the Collector had set aside the orders on 11.08.2014. On remand, just because the decision was pending consideration before the authorities that should not work to the advantage of the petitioners who were otherwise not Page 15 of 28 C/SCA/9555/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2022 qualified to be appointed. They cannot claim equities on the passage of time rendered for a decision taken by the authorities which is in accordance with law. 8. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, a few significant events need to be noted. (I) It is undisputed that the appointments were to be made by the Municipality on sanctioned vacant posts. Advertisements were issued on 07.12.2011 and 18.01.2012 in the two daily newspapers for appointment on 13 vacancies on 11 posts. (II) These advertisements were issued in backdrop of the resolution of the Municipality that the recruitment would be made by holding a written examination and assigning marks to each paper. Reading Resolution No.7 dated 05.12.2007 would indicate that it was incumbent for the Municipality to hold a written examination of general knowledge and a 50 mark oral test keeping questions in mind akin to the nature of posts on which the candidates needed Page 16 of 28 C/SCA/9555/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2022 to be appointed. It appears that this practice was given a go-bye on the basis of a resolution dated 28.02.2012 purportedly on the ground that for the 13 posts only 430 applications were received. Recruitment was sought to be made to sub-rule (3) of Rule 7 of the Rules which have been produced by way of an annexure to the affidavit in reply of the Nagarpalika. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 7 of the Rules would indicate that where examinations are not stipulated in accordance with the rules, it is open for the Nagarpalika to hold oral interviews. Despite this stipulation in the Rules, it was thought fit by the Nagarpalika to fall back upon Sub-rule (2) of Rule 7 of the Resolution of 05.12.2021 to hold written examinations and the Nagarpalika made a departure thereto in the present process of recruitment. (III) Reading of the impugned orders would also indicate that the Director of Municipalities had on 04.02.2004 informed the Chief Officers that when appointments are made to the sanctioned posts before orders of appointment are issued, a formal Page 17 of 28 C/SCA/9555/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2022 approval from the Collector must be sought for. Obviously it was in context of these instructions of the Government that the Municipality after the advertisement and the applications made and the interviews held forwarded a proposal to the Collector for approval. On a purported ground of administrative needs, the President without awaiting for the approval of the Collector issued orders for appointment. This too was found to be in violation of the circular of the Government of 02.04.2011. By the orders impugned herein, it was suggested on reading the circular that it was the Chief Officer who had to issue orders of appointment. (IV) Apart from the fact which cannot be ignored is that the President of the Municipality was removed after proceedings under Section 37 of the Municipalities Act for his ominousness of carrying out such recruitment. What has come on record is also a statement of the councilors who participated and were part of the Selection Committee dated 27.08.2014 indicating that the procedure of Page 18 of 28 C/SCA/9555/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2022 recruitment undertaken by the Committee itself was contrary to law and that they should be absolved from following this illegal procedure and if any loss is caused to the Nagarpalika, the same should be recovered from the responsible person and not the councilors. Also is on record a communication dated 05.11.2012 of the Chief Officer of the Modasa Nagarpalika addressed to the Collector indicating as to how each candidate who was appointed did not satisfy the requisite qualifications prescribed in the advertisement. 9. During the course of his submissions, Mr.Buch had relied on a chart produced together with his reply. It will be in the fitness of things that the chart be reproduced hereunder: NAME OF SELECTED CANDIDATE POST MINIMUM REQUIREMENT QUALIFICAT ION OF SELECTED CANDIDATE REMARKS Nileshbhai Pravinbhai Patel - Petitioner No.1 Commun ity Organize r HSC and BRS with 5 years of experience in Municipality and CCC. HSC Pass, BRS and CCC Do not have experience with Nagarpalika Kaushikkumar Kantilal Gor - Petitioner No. 2 Wirema n cum Electric ian I.T.I Wireman Second Class and SSC with 3 years of experience Wireman Exam cleared, SSC Pass, working with Nagarpalika as Left to abroad for three months during contract/job and rejoin after that. He produced wrong certificate of experience with continuity. Page 19 of 28 C/SCA/9555/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2022 daily wager since 1990 Bhaveshkumar Hirabhai Patel – Petitioner No. 3 Driver RTO approved heavy vehicle license and 7 t h pass with 3 years of experience 12th pass, RTO Approved heavy license Has produced forged certificate of experience. He was issued heavy license on 16.03.2011. Miketkumar Rameshbhai Patel – Petitioner No. 4 12th pass, RTO approved heavy vehicle license Heavy vehicle license was issued on 12.01.2012. Done PTC from 2006-2008. Produced forged document of experience. Jashwantkumar Dahyabhai Sagar – Petitioner No. 5 9th pass, RTO Approved heavy vehicle license, working as daily wager since 1992 Discrepancy in birthdate in School Leaving Certificate (17.09.1975) and in Driving License (17.09.1974). His experience is doubtful as at the time of joining his age was 17. Divyang Yashantbhai Bhatt – Petitioner No. 6 Fire Officer Graduation, Govt. approved course for sub- officer and CCC cleared and 5 years of experience in municipality Disaster Management Does not possess required qualification and experience Kamal Ishwarbhai Patel – Petitioner No. 7 Fireman Govt. Approved Fireman Course with three years of experience. Fireman Course, Trainee supervisor Does not possess experience Devang Chhabildas Soni - Petitioner No. 8 Technic al Assista nt Diploma in Civil Engn., five years of Experience and CCC cleared. - Selection Committee manipulated with marks and increased total marks. Also facing ACB inquiry Purohit Sunilkumar Gulabsinh – Petitioner No. 9 Sanitar y Inspect or Graduate and All India Institute of Local Self Govn. Sanitary Insp. Course and CCC (preference to science graduate) - - Aviash Hareshbhai Kadiya – Petitioner No. 10 Comput er Operato r Graduate, Computer Department of Electronics and Accreditation Graduate, CCC His father-in-law was a member of selection committee Page 20 of 28 C/SCA/9555/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2022 of Computer courses and CCC Kunjan Hashmukhbhai Chaudhary – Petitioner No. 11 Clerk cum Comput er Operato r Graduate, Computer Department of Electronics and Accreditation of Computer courses and CCC Graduate and CCC Contested election for post of Councilor in Modasa Muni. In __________as a candidate of BJP Sanjay Govardhanbhai Rathod – Petitioner No. 12 Cleaner 7 t h pass (priority to experienced) HSC pass and working as daily wager since 1993 Produced false certificate of experience with Modasa Cargo Carriers from 1990- 1993. During that period, he was studying in Sarvoday Highschool Modasa 10. Perusal of the chart for instance would indicate that for the post of community organizer, the candidate selected was one Nileshbhai Pravinbhai Patel. The minimum requirement was HSC and BRS with five years of experience in Municipality and CCC. The candidate selected was HSC pass, BRS and CCC but had no experience of having worked with the Nagarpalika. For the post of drivers, the candidates who were selected needed to have an RTO approved heavy vehicle license and 7th pass with three years of experience. The candidates had passed standard 12th and 9th but it was found on examination that one of them had produced a forged certificate of experience of he having been issued a license on 16.03.2011. In Page 21 of 28 C/SCA/9555/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2022 the other two cases, there were forged documents of experience and discrepancy in the date of birth. These instances were extensively pointed out by the Chief Officer of Nagarpalika in context of the submissions as set out in the impugned order. 11. The submission of the learned Senior Advocate Mr.Joshi that they have not been extensively discussed or have been discussed only in the context of the appeals that were before it in respect of three posts in question, is also misconceived. Reading the order dated 23.01.2018 passed in the case of Divyang Yashvantbhai Bhatt would indicate that the Court had summarized the picture of controversy in para 10 of the decision which read as under: “10. When above-mentioned details are taken into account, the situation which emerges can be summarized thus:- [i] The Collector, Modasa, vide his order dated 11.8.2014, set aside the selection process and appointment made by the respondent No.4 – Nagarpalika, to various posts i.e. higher officer, Technical Assistant, Computer Operator, Sanitary Inspector, etc. [ii] Aggrieved by the said order dated 11.8.2014 passed by the Collector, some of the appointees / Page 22 of 28 C/SCA/9555/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2022 selected candidates filed Special Civil Application No.11523 of 2014. Some other persons filed revision application/appeal No.5 of 2014 before the authority. [iii] By order dated 21.8.2014, this Court stayed the operation of the order dated 11.8.2014 passed by the Collector. The said interim relief has remained in operation until now. [iv] On the other hand, some of the selected candidates challenged the order dated 11.8.2014 by way of revision application No.5 of 2014. The revisional/ appellate authority partly allowed the said revision application No.5 of 2014 vide order dated 8.5.2015. By the said order dated 8.5.2015, the Collector's order dated 11.8.2014 is quashed and set aside. The opponents before the revisional authority have filed Special Civil Application No.13808 of 2015. However, in the said petition, the operation of the order dated 8.5.2015 is not stayed. 10.1 In this view of the matter, the petition filed against the order dated 11.8.2014 i.e. Special Civil Application No.11523 of 2014 is rendered infructuous. 10.2 Further, by the order dated 8.5.2015, the Collector is directed to decide the case afresh and for that purpose, the matter is remanded to the Collector.” 12. After the above, accordingly issued directions suggested in the subsequent paragraphs which read as under: Page 23 of 28 C/SCA/9555/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2022 “11. Under the circumstances, it appears that both the petitions can be disposed of at this stage with following observations and clarifications:- [a] In light of the order dated 8.5.2015 in revision application No.5 of 2014, Special Civil Application No.11523 of 2014 is already rendered infructuous. Consequently, the said petition deserves to be disposed of as infructuous. [b] Besides this, in view of the fact that the said order dated 11.8.2014 was passed without granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioners in Special Civil Application No.11523 of 2014, the said order is vitiated on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice and therefore also, on the said limited ground, the said order deserves to be quashed and set aside. [c] Consequently, Special Civil Application No.11523 of 2014 stands disposed of in light of revisional authority's order dated 8.5.2015 and also on the ground that the impugned order is vitiated on account of principles of natural justice. [d] The revisional authority has directed the Collector to re-consider the matter and pass fresh order. For the said purpose, revisional authority has set aside the order dated 11.8.2014. [e] In view of the fact that the order dated 11.8.2014 came to be passed without granting opportunity of hearing to the selected candidates, the order dated 8.5.2015 cannot be faulted. Further, by order dated 8.5.2015, the revisional authority has merely remanded the proceedings for fresh hearing and consideration and fresh order. Page 24 of 28 C/SCA/9555/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2022 [f] In view of violation of principles of natural justice, while passing the order dated 11.8.2014, even otherwise, proceedings deserve to be remanded to the original authority. [g] In that view of the matter, there is no reason or justification to interfere with the order dated 8.5.2015 passed by the revisional authority in revision application No.5 of 2014. However, interest of the persons who were opponents in revision application No.5 of 2014 i.e. petitioners in Special Civil Application No.13808 of 2015 also deserves to be protected and that therefore, the said persons also should be granted opportunity of hearing before the Collector. [h] Under the circumstances, while disposing of Special Civil Application No.13808 of 2015, it is clarified that when the Collector takes up the matter for re-consideration and re-hearing and for fresh order in light of direction dated 8.5.2015 by revisional authority, the Collector shall grant opportunity of hearing to all concerned and interested persons including the petitioners in Special Civil Application No.11523 of 2014 as well as petitioners in Special Civil Application No.13808 of 2015 and appellants and opponents before the revisional authority in revision application No.5 of 2014. [i] After granting fresh opportunity of hearing to all concerned and interested persons, the Collector shall pass fresh reasoned and speaking order. [j] It is clarified that all rights and contentions of the petitioners in both the petitions as well as the revisionists before the revisional authority are kept open. The Collector shall consider and decide all issues which may be raised by the parties and pass reasoned and speaking order without being influenced by his previous order Page 25 of 28 C/SCA/9555/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2022 dated 11.8.2014 and shall endeavour to hear and decide the case as expeditiously as possible and preferably within 3 months. [k] The Collector shall consider and decide the matter independently and on its own merits and in light of the material which may be placed before him by concerned parties including the Nagarpalika and after taking into account the applicable rules, resolutions and policy. With aforesaid observations and clarifications, both the petitions are disposed of.” 13. In compliance of the direction, though Mr.Joshi would submit that the authorities have not passed a fresh, reasoned and speaking order, when the orders are read in context of the background referred to herein above, particularly in context of the resolution of circulars of 02.08.2000, 04.02.2004 and the Rules of Recruitment, the authorities have found that singularly, the Nagarpalika has recruited these appointees without following the procedure so envisaged. On this preliminary issue therefore when the authorities found that the recruitment was bad and without the procedure being followed and when each qualification was displayed, only on the ground of therefore setting aside this recruitment on the failure to follow the procedure which was a procedure Page 26 of 28 C/SCA/9555/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2022 required for all posts, the order cannot be followed on the ground that it cannot reflect any reasons. 14. Para 9 of the decision in case of Madhya Pradesh Industries Limited (supra) would indicate that when an Appellate Authority affirms the order of an Original Tribunal, agreeing with the reasons, the elaboration depends on the facts of each case. On consideration of facts when the Regional Commissioner found that the entire procedure of recruitment was not in accordance with the prescribed Rules and was set aside while agreeing with and upholding such reasons, it was not necessary for the Appellate Authority to assign separate. 15. Even in accordance with the decision in case of Sulekha Chandra Pradhan (supra) when the issue was regarding considering the appointments made de-hors the Rules, the Supreme Court in para 32 of the decision held that when the appointments are made in contravention of the statutory provisions, they are to be treated void ab initio. Page 27 of 28 C/SCA/9555/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2022 16. For the aforesaid reasons, there is no reason to interfere with the order impugned in this petition and the petition is accordingly dismissed. 17. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.Haribhai Patel requests that this order be stayed for a period of three weeks. Mr.Hriday Buch and Mr.Utkarsh Sharma learned AGP and Mr.Joshi would object to any grant of stay when the authorities below have found the recruitment as void-ab-initio. 18. Considering the fact that it was as early as on 11.08.2014 that the Collector has found that the appointments were not in accordance with law and but for the pendency of the proceedings on remand, the petitioners would not have been continued in employment, request for interim relief is rejected. (BIREN VAISHNAV, J) ANKIT SHAH Page 28 of 28 "