4 min readFeb 19, 2026 12:56 AM IST
First published on: Feb 7, 2026 at 09:38 AM IST
Holding the 2018 appointment of the Executive Engineer (Civil) Class-I of the Vadodara Municipal Corporation (VMC), who had stood third on the merit list prepared by the selection committee, “arbitrary and violative” of the Constitution and thus, “illegal”, the Gujarat High Court quashed and set aside the appointment and directed the VMC to appoint the candidate who stood first on the same list.
The HC directed the VMC to appoint the petitioner to the post of the Executive Engineer by March 2, 2026, while also directing the VMC to “sympathetically” consider the representation to accommodate the current officer into the service of the corporation, who would “otherwise be jobless” after several years of working at the corporation.
Justice M J Shelat of the Gujarat High Court was hearing a petition filed by J B Kalathiya, who challenged the VMC order dated October 5, 2018, appointing Dharmik Dave, a respondent to the petition, to the post of the Executive Engineer (Civil) through a public invitation and notice, in which, candidates were permitted to compete on merit. Kalathiya had secured the highest score with 250 marks while Dave had secured 176 marks and was found at Serial No.1 in the list prepared by the Selection Committee appointed by the VMC while Dave was at No. 3 on the merit list. However, the VMC had appointed Dave to the post instead of Kalathiya “in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India”.
In its oral judgment dated February 3, the High Court noted that the state had, in a previous case, set aside a similar action of the VMC by an order dated March 31, 2017. “(VMC) can by no means be allowed to sustain the appointment of (Dave) as it was not in consonance with law. Accordingly, this court holds that the impugned decision and appointment are illegal… The action of (the VMC) is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, and is thus, illegal, the resolution dated September 27, 2018 passed by the Corporation is liable to be… and is hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, the appointment order dated October 5, 2018 issued to (Dave) is also quashed,” the order said.
The court order states, “(The petitioner’s) date of appointment shall be treated as his date of entry into the service of the VMC for all benefits flowing therefrom.”
The court also noted that the advocate appearing for the VMC was “unable to dispute the fact that pursuant to the aforesaid orders passed by the State and this Court, the candidature of the petitioner could not have been ignored.”
Considering the submission made by the advocate appearing for Dave, the court also directed the VMC that a “suitable representation” made by Dave to the VMC to accommodate him in the service of the corporation, where he has been working since 2018, “may be considered sympathetically” by the VMC, “keeping in mind the fact that (Dave) has been serving in the corporation since 2018 and by now he is aged about 37 years, he may not be eligible for other public employment.”
During the submissions, Dave’s advocate had submitted that he was “ready to accept appointment as a fresh appointment” if the VMC accommodates him in the corporation, and will “not claim any benefit from the date of his initial appointment till he will be reappointed either to the same post or to another post.”
The court order states, "(The petitioner's) date of appointment shall be treated as his date of entry into the service of the VMC for all benefits flowing therefrom.” 
Share
