Gujarat High Court
Patel Pinaben Nanjibhai vs State Of Gujarat on 5 August, 2025
Author: Nikhil S. Kariel
Bench: Nikhil S. Kariel
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7469/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7469 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR JOINING PARTY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7469 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==========================================================
PATEL PINABEN NANJIBHAI & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR GAUTAM JOSHI, LD. SR. ADV. with MR MUNJAAL M BHATT, MS
KHUSHI MEHTA, MR MEHUL SHARMA(8283) for the Petitioner(s) No.
1,10,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,11,110,111,112,113,114,115
,116,117,118,119,12,120,121,122,123,124,125,126,127,128,129,13,130,131,
132,133,134,135,136,137,138,139,14,140,141,142,143,144,145,15,16,17,18,
19,2,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,3,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,4,40,41,
42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,5,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,6,60,61,62,63,64,6
5,66,67,68,69,7,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,8,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,
89,9,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99
MR ADITYA PATHAK, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL
Date : 05/08/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr.Gautam Joshi with learned Advocate Mr.Munjal Bhatt, learned Advocate Ms.Khushi Mehta and learned Advocate Mr.Mehul Sharma appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Aditya Pathak appearing on behalf of Page 1 of 58 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Wed Aug 06 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 00:15:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7469/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined respondent - State.
2. At the outset, it requires to be stated that the petitioners who are possessing bachelors degree in Civil Engineering (B.E. - B.Tech. in Civil Engineering) (hereinafter referred to as the 'degree holders') have sought to assail a notification by the respondent no.1 department dated 22.10.2024 more particularly insofar as the notification amends the recruitment rules for the post of Additional Assistant Engineer (Civil), Class-III Recruitment Rules, 2024 to the extent of excluding persons having bachelors degree in Civil Engineering from applying.
3. A civil application has been preferred by the applicants who are holding diploma certificate in Civil Engineering (hereinafter referred to as the 'diploma holders') i.e. the exclusive qualification for applying to the post in question, for being joined as parties. Since the main petition had been taken up for final hearing, the civil application was placed along with the main matter and the learned Advocate for the applicants were permitted to make submissions opposing the petition.
Page 2 of 58 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Wed Aug 06 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 00:15:54 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7469/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined 3.1. Since it appears that the applicants of the civil application would be prejudiced if the prayers made in the writ petition are granted, more particularly, since an exclusion in favour of the diploma holders in Civil Engineering i.e. the applicants of the civil application and such similarly situated persons is under challenge and any order setting aside the exclusion would prejudice the interest of the applicants, therefore, the application deserves consideration more particularly since the applicants are proper and necessary parties and therefore, the civil application is treated as allowed.
4. Issue Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Advocates waive service of rule on respective respondents.
5. As noticed hereinabove, with the consent of parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing.
6. The petitioners have sought for the following prayers:-
"(a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the Notification No. G/NJ/2024-688/NWRWSKD/MRT/e-
file/13/2023/10401/Section E5 dated 22.10.2024 issued by Respondent No.1 (Annexure-A); Page 3 of 58 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Wed Aug 06 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 00:15:54 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7469/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined
(b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction, holding and declaring that the Petitioners being holders of Bachelor's Degree in Civil Engineering are eligible to participate in the Advertisement No. 303/2025-26 dated 06.05.2025;
(c) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the present petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct Respondent No.2 to permit the Petitioners to submit online / offline applications in pursuance of the Advertisement No. 303/2025-26 dated 06.05.2025 and to consider the same for further recruitment process;
(d) Issue ad-interim ex-parte relief in terms of Para (c) hereinabove;
(e) Grant such other and further relief(s) as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case."
7. As noticed hereinabove, the petitioners challenge amendment of the Additional Assistant Engineer (Civil), Class- III Recruitment Rules, 2024 more particularly whereby a proviso has been introduced in the recruitment rules which excludes candidates holding bachelors degree in Civil Engineering as being ineligible to apply for the post in question. It appears that originally, the respondent no.1 department had, vide notification dated 02.09.2015 notified recruitment rules for the post of Additional Assistant Engineer (Civil), Class-III in the subordinate service of the Narmada, Water Resources, Water Supply & Kalpsar Department. The Page 4 of 58 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Wed Aug 06 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 00:15:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7469/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined relevant qualification was a diploma in engineering (civil) obtained from a recognized institution etc. It appears that thereafter, pursuant to certain litigations in the High Court, it appeared to the Government that though the qualification was of having a diploma in engineering, since there was no specific exclusion of degree holders more particularly in view of observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Jyoti K. K. vs. Kerala Public Service Commission, reported in 2010 (15) SCC 596 vide decision taken in a meeting under the Chairmanship of the Chief Secretary, State of Gujarat resolved to bring an exclusion clause. It is in pursuance to such a meeting that the State had notified amendment of the recruitment rules vide notification dated 22.10.2024, aggrieved by which, the petitioners have approached this Court.
8. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr.Gautam Joshi who would take this Court to the impugned amendment as well as advertisement issued by the Gujarat Subordinate Selection Board pursuant to the amendment dated 06.05.2025 more particularly whereby the amended proviso has been incorporated in the educational qualification requirement. Page 5 of 58 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Wed Aug 06 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 00:15:54 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7469/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined 8.1. Learned Senior Advocate would thereafter refer to a decision of a learned Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 13.12.2022 in Special Civil Application No.459/2018 whereby diploma holders had sought to question recruitment process to the post of Additional Assistant Engineer (Civil), Class-III in Panchayat Services inter alia on the ground that though the recruitment rules required that educational qualification to be held by a candidate was of possessing diploma in civil engineering or an equivalent qualification, yet, the recruiting authorities had permitted candidates having degree in civil engineering to participate and therefore, the selection list insofar as the degree holders, was requested to be set aside. 8.2. Learned Senior Advocate would submit that though the selection body i.e. the Gujarat Panchayat Service Selection Board had taken a stand that since the impugned rule prescribes diploma in civil engineering as being the required qualification and since there was no specific exclusions of persons having degree in civil engineering or any other equivalent qualification, they could not be deemed to be ineligible. It is submitted that the learned Coordinate Bench, considering the submissions made by all the parties, Page 6 of 58 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Wed Aug 06 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 00:15:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7469/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined more particularly, referring to decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Jyoti K. K. (supra) had rejected the said writ petition.
8.3. Learned Senior Advocate would submit that it is after the said decision of the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court, which has as yet not been interfered in appeal, that the State had brought about the impugned amendment. It is submitted that the learned Coordinate Bench had inter alia held that the equivalence as mentioned in the advertisement would include persons having equivalent qualification including a higher qualification which presupposed the acquisition of a lower qualification. Learned Senior Advocate would submit that the exclusion of degree holders is manifestly arbitrary since the minutes of the meeting relied upon by the State only offers a justification that the diploma holders are better suited, is unsupported by any cogent reasoning or data. It is further submitted that the exclusion policy results in merit being compromised since more meritorious candidates having a degree in engineering would be excluded from participating in the selection process. 8.4. Learned Senior Advocate would further submit that Page 7 of 58 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Wed Aug 06 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 00:15:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7469/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined since the present amendment is in the nature of a subordinate legislation, the same could be interfered with if it is manifestly arbitrary and whereas, observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Association For Democratic Reforms vs. Union of India, reported in 2024 (5) SCC 1 and in case of Shayara Bano vs. Union of India and Ors., reported in 2017 (9) SCC 1 are being relied upon.
8.5. Learned Senior Advocate would submit that the exclusion is without any intelligible differentia and lacks a rational nexus to be object sought to be achieved and thus, is violative of Article 14. It is submitted that recruitment rules should aim to attract the best possible talent and create a level playing field for all qualified aspirants. It is further submitted that the impugned rules failed to satisfy the adequate determining principles. It is further submitted that since degree holders possess the higher qualification and whereas, since their inclusion would ensure healthy competition, therefore, the exclusion is arbitrary. 8.6. Learned Senior Advocate would rely upon the following judgments:-
i. Association For Democratic Reforms vs. Union of India, Page 8 of 58 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Wed Aug 06 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 00:15:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7469/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined reported in 2024 (5) SCC 1 ii. Shayara Bano vs. Union of India and Ors., reported in 2017 (9) SCC 1 iii. State of Jammu & Kashmir vs. Triloki Nath Khosha and Ors., reported in 1974 (1) SCC 19 iv. State of Assam and Ors. vs. Arabinda Rabha and Ors., reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 523 v. Khalsa University and Anr. vs. The State of Punjab and Anr., reported in 2024 SCC OnLine 2697 8.7. Learned Senior Advocate would submit that without prejudice to the above submissions, since it appears that attrition may have been one of the reasons which may have weighed with the State Authorities, therefore, the petitioners have already filed an additional affidavit undertaking that they would not resign post appointment to address the concern of the State.
8.8. Thus submitting, learned Senior Advocate would request this Court to quash the impugned notification and would submit that consequently, the petitioners may be permitted to participate in the selection process as advertised by the Gujarat Subordinate Service Selection Board i.e. Page 9 of 58 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Wed Aug 06 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 00:15:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7469/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined respondent no.2 herein vide advertisement dated 06.05.2025.
9. The present petition is vehemently resisted by learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Aditya Pathak. It is submitted by learned AGP that the decision impugned has been arrived at by the Government after due deliberation. It is submitted by learned AGP that originally, a meeting had been held on 03.01.2022 under the Chairmanship of the Chief Secretary, State of Gujarat to consider amending the recruitment rules in Panchayat service for the post of Additional Assistant Engineer (Civil), Class-III and whereas, it was discussed in the said meeting as regards Polytechnic colleges throughout the State imparting education in the course of diploma in civil engineering and also as regards limited avenues available for persons having the said qualification. It is submitted that based on the reasons mentioned in the minutes, the Committee had opined that the recruitment rules are not required to be modified. It is submitted that, later on, a meeting had been held under the Chairmanship of the Chief Secretary for amending the rules for the post in question.
9.1. Learned AGP would submit that minutes of the Page 10 of 58 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Wed Aug 06 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 00:15:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7469/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined meeting would reveal that the Committee was of the opinion that candidates having diploma in civil engineering were better suitable for the post in question than the candidates having the qualification of degree in civil engineering. Learned AGP would submit that the rational and nexus considering the functions and duties of the said post, could not be said to be illegal or illogical. Learned AGP would submit that while the petitioners have sought to base their claim on the equivalence, the respondent no.1 department had issued a further resolution clarifying the equivalence as found in the recruitment rules. Learned AGP would submit that the resolution dated 24.10.2024 states a list of sixteen diplomas which are to be treated as equivalent to diploma in civil engineering. Learned AGP would submit that since the equivalence has been specifically laid down, it would not be open for the petitioners to now contend that the term equivalence would also include degree or a higher qualification.
9.2. Learned AGP would, in support of his submissions, refer to the following decisions:-
i. Decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Jyoti Page 11 of 58 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Wed Aug 06 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 00:15:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7469/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined K.K. (supra) ii. Decision in case of Zahoor Ahmad Rather vs. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad, reported in 2019 (2) SCC 404 iii. Decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Maharashtra Public Service Commission vs. Sandeep Shriram Warade and others, reported in 2019 (6) SCC 362 iv. Decision in case of P.U.Joshi vs. Accountant General, Ahmedabad, reported in 2003 (2) SCC 632
10. Learned Advocate Mr.Hriday Buch with learned Advocate Mr.D.M.Devnani on behalf of the private respondents would submit that degree and diploma are not similar, inasmuch as, they are not in the same hierarchy. Learned Advocate would submit that a diploma course could be pursued after 10 th standard or 12th standard, whereas after 10th standard a diploma is a 4 year course and after 12th standard diploma course is a 2 year course. It is submitted that as against the same, a degree course after 12th standard is a 4 year course. It is further submitted that a diploma holder cannot seek lateral entry in the 3rd year of the degree course. It is submitted that Page 12 of 58 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Wed Aug 06 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 00:15:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7469/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined while there may be common branches such as engineering, yet, that by itself would not mean that degree is a superior qualification to diploma in the same vertical hierarchy. 10.1. Learned Advocate would submit that having regard to difference between degree holders and diploma holders, they could not be treated as equals and whereas, it is submitted that it is a well settled proposition that Article 14 of the Constitution of India could not be relied upon to claim that unequals should be treated as equals, rather, Article 14 of the Constitution of India provides that equals should not be treated unequals. Learned advocate would submit that as such, the decision relied upon by the petitioners of Jyoti K. K. (supra) would not be applicable as had been explained by the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in case of Bharatkumar Babubhai Parmar vs. State of Gujarat rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No.705/2023.
10.2. Submitting as such, learned advocate would request that this Court may not interfere in the impugned notification.
Page 13 of 58 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Wed Aug 06 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 00:15:54 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7469/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined
11. Heard learned Advocates on behalf of the respective parties and perused the documents on record. The issue which falls for consideration of this Court is whether the impugned notification whereby in the recruitment process for Additional Assistant Engineer (Civil), Class-III with the respondent department, whereby holders of bachelor degree in Civil Engineering have been excluded, is required to be interfered with or not.
11.1. The challenge to the impugned notification has been on two grounds:-
(i) as being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution on India since the amendment/subordinate legislation is manifestly arbitrary; and
(ii) exclusion not based on an intelligible differentia without having any nexus with the object sought to be achieved.
12. At the first instance, before addressing the submissions made by learned advocates for the parties, this Court seeks to rely upon decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of Tamil Nadu and Anr. vs. P. Krishnamurthy and Ors., reported on 2006 (4) SCC 517. Page 14 of 58 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Wed Aug 06 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 00:15:54 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7469/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined Paragraph no.15 being relevant for the present purpose, is reproduced hereinbelow for benefit:-
"15. There is a presumption in favour of constitutionality or validity of a sub-ordinate Legislation and the burden is upon him who attacks it to show that it is invalid. It is also well recognized that a sub-ordinate legislation can be challenged under any of the following grounds :-
a) Lack of legislative competence to make the sub-ordinate legislation.
b) Violation of Fundamental Rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India.
c) Violation of any provision of the
Constitution of India.
d) Failure to conform to the Statute under which it is made or exceeding the limits of authority conferred by the enabling Act.
e) Repugnancy to the laws of the land, that is, any enactment .
f) Manifest arbitrariness/unreasonableness (to an extent where court might well say that Legislature never intended to give authority to make such Rules).
The court considering the validity of a sub-ordinate Legislation, will have to consider the nature, object and scheme of the enabling Act, and also the area over which power has been delegated under the Act and then decide whether the subordinate Legislation conforms to the parent Statute. Where a Rule is directly inconsistent with a mandatory provision of the Statute, then, of course, the task of the court is simple and easy. But where the contention is that the inconsistency or non- conformity of the Rule is not with reference to any specific provision of the enabling Act, but with the object and scheme of the Page 15 of 58 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Wed Aug 06 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 00:15:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7469/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined Parent Act, the court should proceed with caution before declaring invalidity."
12.1. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above quoted decision has inter alia laid down that there is a presumption of constitutionality or validity in favour of a subordinate legislation and it is for the person who seeks to question the same to make out a case that the subordinate legislation is invalid. While, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated the grounds on which a subordinate legislation could be challenged, it would appear that in the instant case, the primary challenge is on the ground of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India alleging that the subordinate legislation is manifestly arbitrary. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further laid down that the Court considering the challenge to validity of subordinate legislation is required to consider the nature, object and scheme of the enabling act and also the area over which the power has been delegated under the Act and decide whether the subordinate legislation confirms the parent statute or not.
12.2. Keeping in mind the above principles, this Court would examine challenge of the petitioners to the impugned Page 16 of 58 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Wed Aug 06 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 00:15:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7469/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined notification i.e. the subordinate legislation in question.
13. At the outset, before examining validity of the sub- ordinate legislation, it would be appropriate to examine the principle statute i.e. the recruitment rules itself from the perspective of whether the subordinate legislation confirmed to the parent statute. Rule 3(b)(i) of the Additional Assistant Engineer (Civil), Class-III Recruitment Rules along with the amended provision which is highlighted in bold letters is reproduced herein below for benefit:-
"(i) possess a diploma in Civil Engineering obtained from Technical Examination Board or any of the Universities or institutions established or incorporated by or under the Central or a State Act in India; or any other educational institutions recognised as such or declared as deemed to be a university under section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956; or possess an equivalent qualification recognised by the Government:
Provided that the candidate holding bachelor's degree in Civil Engineering shall not be eligible to apply."
13.1. Perusal of the provision reveals that from the inception of the rule, the qualification required, as mentioned therein, was a diploma in civil engineering from a recognized institution. The later part of the rule stated about the equivalent qualification and whereas, what is noticeable on Page 17 of 58 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Wed Aug 06 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 00:15:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7469/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined the face of the rule is the fact that originally, the State wanted only persons with diploma apply for selection. It is later, the equivalent criteria had been incorporated by the learned Coordinate Bench relying upon decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Jyoti K. K. (supra) to mean that the term would also include higher qualifications which would automatically presuppose acquisition of the lower qualification.
13.2. Perusal of the minutes of the meeting referred to hereinabove more particularly the later minutes dated 10.06.2024 reveals that the State had also taken into consideration observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Jyoti K. K. (supra) as regards acquisition of higher qualification presupposing acquisition of lower qualification and whereas, the Committee had also taken note of the observations by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that if the State were of the opinion that only candidates with a particularly criteria should be eligible to apply, then the rule should have specifically excluded all other qualifications including higher qualifications from being the relevant qualification to apply for selection for the post in question.
Page 18 of 58 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Wed Aug 06 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 00:15:54 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7469/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined 13.3. Reading the qualification criteria as it has existed before the amendment with the minutes of the Committee, the object of the impugned notification becomes apparent inasmuch as since the educational qualification, as found in the recruitment rules, was a diploma from a recognized institution and since the equivalence clause had been interpreted to mean even higher or better qualifications, the State to ensure that the original object of the rule is fulfilled, has introduced the impugned exclusion clause. 13.4. At this stage, it would also be worthwhile to refer to Government Resolution dated 24.10.2024 referred to hereinabove, incidentally which has not been challenged whereby the State has even clarified the courses which could be terms as 'equivalent'. Thus, taking an overall view of the matter, it would clearly appear that the object of the State was to ensure that only persons having the qualification of diploma be eligible to apply. Thus, on an overall perspective, it would clearly appear that the amendment is in furtherance of the object of the recruitment rule.
14. Now, this Court will examine the subordinate Page 19 of 58 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Wed Aug 06 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 00:15:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7469/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined legislation from the view point of the challenge mounted by the petitioners as enumerated above.
14.1. Insofar as the aspect of being violative of Article 14, as the subordinate legislation is manifestly arbitrary, it has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that the exclusion of degree holders is only on account of the prejudice held by the department against the petitioners on account of the previous litigation on the similar issues. It is submitted that there were litigations before this Court hereinbefore where the interim and final orders have been passed including a decision by a learned Coordinate Bench dated 13.12.2022 in Special Civil Application No.459/2018 instituted by the diploma holders questioning the decision of the State Authorities to permit degree holders to compete in the selection for the post of Additional Assistant Engineer (Civil) albeit in a different department.
14.2. To this Court, it would appear that such a contention is absolutely baseless. As it appears, the above mentioned writ petition had been preferred by diploma holders inter alia contending that degree holders ought not to be permitted to participate in the selection process. Perusal of Page 20 of 58 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Wed Aug 06 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 00:15:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7469/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined the said decision also reveals that in the said petition, which was contested by the Gujarat Panchayat Service Selection Board and whereas, the stand of the Board which had been accepted by the learned Coordinate Bench was in favour fo the present petitioners i.e. the degree holders. It also appears that the State had not sought to question the said decision rather it is only the original petitioners who had sought to question the same.
14.3. Furthermore, from the interim orders which have been annexed with the present petition, it would appear that while in a selection for the post of Surveyor, Class-III undertaken by the respondent no.2 Board, while this Court had protected the petitioners, it does not appear that the said decision of this Court had been questioned before a higher forum by the State. Furthermore, this Court has also noticed an order dated 07.04.2025 in the writ petition referred to i.e. Special Civil Application No.20256/2023 whereby the petitioners i.e. degree holders had sought to withdraw the petition based upon an affidavit by the Under Secretary, Revenue Department, State of Gujarat where the degree holders including the petitioners therein would be permitted Page 21 of 58 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Wed Aug 06 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 00:15:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7469/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined to be included in the recruitment process and would also be considered for appointment based upon the same. Again, what is more interesting is that the State had not only permitted the degree holders who had approached this Court, rather, the State had permitted all the degree holders to participate in the selection process. Thus, it would appear to this Court that there is no element of the State appearing to be prejudiced against degree holders.
14.4. It appears that the grievance of the diploma holders in an earlier round of litigation albeit with regard to a different department as regards degree holders being considered for selection in spite of the qualification being of having a diploma in the concerned subject and whereas, it appears that the selection Board had taken a stand against the diploma holders. Again, in a later litigation where the degree holders had raised a grievance that they were not being permitted to participate in the selection process, the State at a later stage, had permitted the degree holders to participate including those who were not litigants before this Court. Furthermore, while it appears that the State has relied upon minutes of the meeting dated 03.01.2022 and Page 22 of 58 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Wed Aug 06 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 00:15:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7469/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined 10.06.2024 whereby a decision had been taken to exclude the degree holders, yet, even in the said minutes, there does not appear to be any element of prejudice involved. Thus, the ground that the exclusion was on account of the department/State being prejudiced against the degree holders, does not appear to be backed by any material, rather, as noticed, the position seems to be converse. 14.5. It has been further contended by learned Counsel for the petitioners that the learned Coordinate Bench vide decision in Special Civil Application No.459/2018 had concluded that the terminology 'or equivalent' as appearing in the recruitment rules has been held to include degree holders. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that since the exclusion is contrary to the law settled by this Court, therefore also, the same is arbitrary. It appears as noticed hereinabove that the writ petition being Special Civil Application No.459/2018 had been preferred by a group of diploma holders who had questioned the action on the part of the Gujarat State Panchayat Services Selection Board of permitted the degree holders to appear in the selection process. Learned Coordinate Bench, relying upon decision of Page 23 of 58 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Wed Aug 06 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 00:15:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7469/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Chandrakala Trivedi vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors., reported in 2012 (3) SCC 129, had inter alia observed that the word 'equivalent' should be given a reasonable meaning and flexibility since there is a difference between the word 'equivalent' and 'exact'. It has been held by the learned Coordinate Bench that when rules specifically provide for any equivalent educational qualification, then a person having diploma, as in the present recruitment, or any other equivalent qualification may be permitted to take part.
14.6. As a matter of fact, after having considered the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Chandrakala Trivedi (supra), the learned Coordinate Bench had relied upon observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Jyoti K. K. (supra). It would appear that after having analyzed the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the learned Coordinate Bench had clearly held that while a higher qualification presupposes acquisition of a lower qualification and therefore, a higher qualification could be considered as a relevant qualification for the post in question. The learned Coordinate Bench further observed that if in the event the Page 24 of 58 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Wed Aug 06 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 00:15:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7469/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined Government was of the opinion that only diploma holders should be permitted to appear in the selection process, but not those who possess higher qualification, then the rules should have excluded candidates possessing higher qualification or there should have been a specific exclusion as regards degree holders not being eligible to apply. 14.7. Observations of the learned Coordinate Bench in Special Civil Application No.459/2018 at paragraph 7.7 and 7.8 being relevant for the present purpose, are reproduced hereinbelow for benefit:-
"7.7 Now in light of aforesaid observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the view taken by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Jyoti K.K. vs. Kerala Public Service Commission (supra) is required to be considered. In case of Jyoti K.K. vs. Kerala Public Service Commission reported in (2010) 15 SCC in para:7 to 10, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:
"7. On the question that the said rules are applicable to the selection posts in the board, there is no dispute. The High Court after setting out the contentions noticed that there were no executive orders in relation to equivalent qualifications prescribed by the government. The High Court stated that the position is that, the qualifications possessed by the appellants do not presuppose the acquisition of prescribed lower qualifications and when qualification has been prescribed for a post, the same cannot be diluted and persons not possessing those qualifications cannot be permitted to be eligible.Page 25 of 58 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Wed Aug 06 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 00:15:54 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7469/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined It was noticed that all those who had similar or even better qualifications than those candidates would not have applied for the post because they did not possess the qualifications mentioned in the advertisement and such a position would result in "fraud on public to appoint persons with inferior qualifications, in such circumstances, unless it is clearly stated that qualifications are relaxable". On that basis, the High Court dismissed the petitions filed by the appellants. The contentions urged before the High Court are reiterated on either side before us.
8. Rule 10 (a) (ii) reads as follows:
"Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules or in the special rules, the qualifications recognised by executive orders or standing orders of government as equivalent to a qualification specified for a post in the special rules and such of those higher qualifications which presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualification prescribed for the post shall also be sufficient for the post."
9. It is no doubt true, as stated by the High Court that when a qualification has been set out under the relevant rules, the same cannot be in any manner whittled down and a different qualification cannot be adopted. The High Court is also justified in stating that the higher qualification must clearly indicate or presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualification prescribed for that post in order to attract that part of the rule to the effect that such of those higher qualifications which presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualifications prescribed for the post shall also be sufficient for the post. If a person has acquired higher qualifications in the same faculty, such qualification can certainly be stated to presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualifications prescribed for the post. In Page 26 of 58 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Wed Aug 06 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 00:15:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7469/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined this case it may not be necessary to seek far. Under the relevant rules, for the post of assistant engineer, degree in electrical engineering of Kerala University or other equivalent qualification recognised or equivalent thereto has been prescribed. For a higher post when a direct recruitment has to be held, the qualification that has to be obtained, obviously gives an indication that such qualification is definitely higher qualification than what is prescribed for the lower post, namely, the post of sub-engineer. In that view of the matter the qualification of degree in electrical engineering presupposes the acquisition of the lower qualification of diploma in that subject prescribed for the post, shall be considered to be sufficient for that post. In the event the government is of the view that only diploma holders should have applied to post of sub- engineers but not all those who possess higher qualifications, either this rule should have excluded in respect of candidates who possess higher qualifications or the position should have been made clear that degree holder shall not be eligible to apply for such post. When that position is not clear but on the other hand rules do not disqualify per se the holders of higher qualifications in the same faculty, it becomes clear that the rule could be understood in an appropriate manner as stated above. In that view of the matter the order of the High Court cannot be sustained. In this case we are not concerned with the question whether all those who possess such qualifications could have applied or not. When statutory rules have been published and those rules are applicable, it presupposes that everyone concerned with such appointments will be aware of such rules or make himself aware of the rules before making appropriate applications. The High Court, therefore, is not justified in holding that recruitment of appellants would amount to fraud on the public.
Page 27 of 58 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Wed Aug 06 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 00:15:54 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7469/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined [Emphasis supplied]
10. However, we must notice one aspect of the matter. The diploma holders who had been selected by the Public Service Commission have already been appointed and, therefore, it would not be appropriate for us to disturb those appointments. They shall continue in such appointments. Such of those eligible degree holders who fulfil the qualifications referred to above and found suitable to be appointed shall be appointed taking note of the vacancies which are available within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order."
7.8 While making aforesaid observations, the Hon'ble Supreme Court categorically observed that when qualification has been set out under relevant Rules the same cannot be, in any manner, whittled down and different qualification cannot be adopted. A higher qualification presupposes the acquisition of lower qualification and therefore higher qualification shall be considered to be sufficient for the post. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also categorically observed in the aforesaid judgment that in event the Government is of the view that only diploma holders should have applied for the post of Sub-engineers but not all those, who possess higher qualification, either these Rules should have excluded in respect of candidates who possess higher qualification or position should have been made clear that degree holders shall not eligible to apply for such post. The aforesaid observations makes it crystal clear that in absence of there being any exclusion clause in advertisement or in the Rules,whereby any specific class of people, who are degree holders in the instant case, are not barred to participate in the selection process, the submission made by learned advocate Mr.Mishra that Rules provide only for diploma holders to apply for the post of Additional Assistant Engineer cannot be accepted."
[Emphasis supplied] Page 28 of 58 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Wed Aug 06 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 00:15:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7469/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined 14.8. It would thus appear that while the learned Coordinate Bench had accepted the argument on behalf of the opponent Panchayat Service Selection Board as regards the equivalence, yet, learned Coordinate Bench had relying upon decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Jyoti K. K. also come to a conclusion that the State was empowered to exclude a particular category of persons if such exclusion was found in the extant rules. It would thus appear that the observations of the learned Coordinate Bench would not come to the aid of the petitioners.
14.9. Furthermore, insofar as the aspect of equivalence is concerned, it would appear that the respondent no.1 - department has issued a resolution dated 24.10.2024 whereby the aspect of equivalence is clarified. It is mentioned in the resolution that the State Government was considering the aspect of laying down the qualifications which could be treated as equivalent to diploma in civil engineering i.e. the primary qualification for recruitment to the post of Additional Assistant Engineer (Civil), Class-III with the respondent department. The State, after appropriate consideration, has set out a list of sixteen different diplomas which are to be Page 29 of 58 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Wed Aug 06 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 00:15:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7469/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined considered as equivalent to the qualification of diploma in civil engineering. The said resolution had been tendered by way of an affidavit-in-reply and whereas, it would appear that the same had not been challenged.
14.10. It would thus appear to this Court that the State Government, having determined and having listed sixteen different diplomas, which could be treated as equivalent to diploma in civil engineering, could be understood to mean that an aspirant to the post in question should either have the principle qualification or being a diploma in civil engineering or should have any of the sixteen diplomas which are mentioned in the resolution and whereas, no other qualification would be treated as equivalent for the purpose of selection to the post in question. Thus, to this Court, it would appear that the whole argument on the basis of interpretation of the term 'equivalent' by the learned Coordinate Bench based upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Chandrakala Trivedi (supra) would not advance the cause of the petitioners.
14.11. It would further appear that the petitioners in support of their submissions, had relied upon observations of Page 30 of 58 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Wed Aug 06 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 00:15:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7469/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Association for Democratic Reformers (Electoral Bond Scheme) (supra) and whereas, paragraph no. 189 of the said decision has been relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, which is quoted hereinbelow for benefit:-
"189. Shayara Bano (supra) clarified In Re Special Reference No. 1 of 2012 (supra) by holding that a finding of manifest arbitrariness is in itself a constitutional infirmity and, therefore, a ground for invalidating legislation for the violation of Article 14. Moreover, it was held that there is no rational distinction between subordinate legislation and plenary legislation for the purposes of Article 14. Accordingly, the test of manifest arbitrariness laid down by this Court in Indian Express Newspapers (supra) in the context of subordinate legislation was also held to be applicable to plenary legislation. In conclusion, this Court held that manifest arbitrariness "must be something done by the legislature capriciously, irrationally and/or without adequate determining principle." It was further held that a legislation which is excessive and disproportionate would also be manifestly arbitrary.
The doctrine of manifest arbitrariness has been subsequently reiterated by this Court in numerous other judgments."
14.12. While the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court insofar as a subordinate legislation being questioned on the ground that it is violative of Article 14 on the ground of manifest arbitrariness is being examined, the later observations quoted hereinabove from the decision of Sharma Page 31 of 58 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Wed Aug 06 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 00:15:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7469/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined Transport vs. State of A.P., reported in 2002 (2) SCC 188 is an issue which requires consideration. The aspect here is that the petitioners contend that the amendment in the recruitment rules is manifestly arbitrary since the same has been done without adequate determining principle, non- rational and not done, according to reason. It has been contended that the minutes of the meeting of the Committee which is relied upon by the respondent - State is bereft of any adequate determining principle and being unreasonable. 14.13. At this stage, it would be relevant to mention that the State through affidavit-in-reply has placed on record minutes of two different meetings which consisted of amongst others the Chief Secretary, State of Gujarat, the Additional Chief Secretary, General Administration Department, the Secretary, Road and Building Department and the Secretary, Narmada, Water Resources, Water Supply and Kalpsar Department as well as the Additional Chief Secretary, Panchayat Rural Housing and Rural Development Department.
14.14. It would appear that in the first meeting, the issue in consideration was whether there is requirement of Page 32 of 58 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Wed Aug 06 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 00:15:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7469/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined amending the recruitment rules for the post of Additional Assistant Engineer (Civil) with the Panchayat Department to include the qualification of bachelors or masters degree in civil engineering, more particularly, along with the existing qualification of diploma in civil engineering. 14.15. The Committee had considered the following aspects:-
i. The existence of large number of Polytechnic Colleges in the State which are imparting education in the course of diploma in civil engineering where candidate could take admission after 10th standard.
ii. For candidates having the qualification of diploma in civil engineering, the post of Additional Assistant Engineer (Civil) is the only post where the said qualification is determined as the requisite qualification.
iii. While amending the recruitment rule to include graduates and post graduate candidates in the course of civil engineering would result in more meritorious candidates being available, but, including such candidates would result in the candidates having Page 33 of 58 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Wed Aug 06 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 00:15:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7469/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined diploma in civil engineering being ousted since degree holders would fare better than the diploma holders in the competitive examination resulting in aspirants having qualification of diploma in civil engineering being rendered unemployed.
iv. The work which is expected of appointees to the post of Additional Assistant Engineer is of such nature that the candidates having degree and post graduate degree in civil engineering look down upon such work more particularly as being much lowly compare to the qualification held by the said candidates.
v. The Additional Assistant Engineer (Civil) is the feeder cadre for Assistant Engineer (Civil), Class-II and whereas, the recruitment rules stipulate that the minimum qualification required is of having a degree in civil engineering.
vi. The Assistant Engineers are given works relating to State Highway or National Highway i.e. major works whereas in context of Panchayat, the Additional Assistant Engineers are given minor works.Page 34 of 58 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Wed Aug 06 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 00:15:54 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7469/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined vii. The department holds direct recruitment for the post of Additional Assistant Engineer, Assistant Engineer and Deputy Executive Engineer whereas except for Additional Assistant Engineer (Civil) all other posts carry a minimum requirement of being a degree holder in civil engineering.
viii.If degree holders are also included in the selection for the post in question, at a later stage, having regard to the qualification held by them, the possibility of such candidates seeking to be treated as Assistant Engineers or filing a litigation for such purpose could not be ruled out.
ix. The Committee has further opined that the degree holders, in addition to participating in selection for the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) and Deputy Executive Engineer (Civil), also take part in selection conducted by the State and Central Government where the minimum qualification is degree in civil engineering and whereas, candidates also appear for selection in Class-I, II post conducted by the GPSC or UPSC and it is observed that Page 35 of 58 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Wed Aug 06 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 00:15:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7469/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined the ratio of attrition among the degree and post graduate degree holders by joining other departments is found to be high.
Having regard to such considerations, the Committee was of the opinion that the request for including the qualification of the degree or post graduate degree in civil engineering as a qualification for the post of Additional Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the Panchayat Department, was not insisted to.
14.16. The State has also relied upon minutes of the later meeting more particularly whereby the issue of amending the recruitment rule for the post of Additional Assistant Engineer (Civil) with the respondent department was considered. At the outset, it requires to be noticed that the issue had received consideration from the highest office i.e. the Office of Hon'ble the Chief Minister, upon whose instructions, the Committee had been convened. The Committee consisted of the same officers holding the position, as in the earlier committee, have made following considerations:-
i. The Committee had considered that the work profile for Page 36 of 58 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Wed Aug 06 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 00:15:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7469/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined the post of Additional Assistant Engineer (Civil) i.e. the duties and responsibilities are more suited to holders of diploma (civil) as against holders of degree in the same stream.
ii. The Committee had further considered that this Court vide decision dated 13.12.2022 had considered a case where the diploma holders had opposed inclusion of degree holders in the selection process and whereas, it is also noticed that this Court had relied upon decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Jyoti K. K. (surpa).
The Committee had relied upon the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as thus:-
"If a person has acquired higher qualifications in the same faculty, such qualification can certainly be stated to presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualifications prescribed for the post.
In the event the government is of the view that only diploma holders should have applied to post of sub-engineers but not all those who possess higher qualifications, either this rule should have excluded in respect of candidates who possess higher qualifications or the position should have been made clear that degree holder shall not be eligible to apply for such post."
iii. The Committee had thereafter observed that having Page 37 of 58 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Wed Aug 06 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 00:15:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7469/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined regard to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it would be expedient to incorporate a proviso in the recruitment rule whereby the degree holders could be specifically excluded from being eligible to apply.
14.17. From a perusal of the considerations which weighed with the Committees, as found in the minutes hereinabove, it would clearly appear to this Court that the decision was not one without adequate determining principles or unreasonable or irrational. While the former meeting was with regard to identical posts in the Panchayat Department, the later meeting was with regard to the very post. Again, to this Court, it would appear that the fact that the former Committee had considered the issue from the perspective of a different department, would not be available to the petitioners herein, more particularly, since it would appear that the issue was one which was being considered by the Government as a whole and not by a single individual department. The constituents of the Committee at both the stages also leaves nothing to doubt that it was the State Government which was considering the issue at its highest level for the purpose of framing a policy. The aspects which weighed with the State Page 38 of 58 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Wed Aug 06 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 00:15:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7469/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined including the fact that the cadre of Additional Assistant Engineer (Civil) is one of the very limited cadres where candidates having diploma in civil engineering could apply for direct selection, large number of colleges in the State of Gujarat imparting education in the course of diploma in civil engineering, candidates having graduate and post graduate degrees in civil engineering being more meritorious would steal a march over candidates having diploma in civil engineering resulting in candidates having diploma engineering being unemployed, the duties and responsibilities being more suited to diploma holders than degree holders, a very high rate of attrition on account of the degree holders leaving the employment upon getting selection in higher posts etc., to this Court, are the relevant factors which were required to be taken into consideration by the State and have been taken into consideration by the State and whereas, it would not appear that the principles for determining as to whether the recruitment rules were to be amended or not, was not adequate.
14.18. While it has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the State is sacrificing merits for making Page 39 of 58 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Wed Aug 06 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 00:15:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7469/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined posts available for diploma holders and has also taken out aspect of the healthy competition between the degree holders and the diploma holders, yet, to this Court, it would appear that the State is the best judge for determining the qualifications required for a post in question and whereas, the State is also required to ensure that it takes into consideration things from an overall perspective rather than a narrow perspective.
14.19. To this Court, it would appear that the consideration that a more qualified candidate would normally be better suited for a post in question, may not be always a correct position. As rightly observed by the Committee, since the nature of work i.e. the duties and responsibilities assigned to the holder of the post of Additional Assistant Engineer (Civil) are normally minor works, degree holders and post graduate degree holders look down upon such works and feel that it is below their dignity to carry out such works. Such a consideration could not be treated to be as either unreasonable or arbitrary. Likewise, the State being alive to the fact that the posts in question are almost the only post in which holders of diploma in civil engineering could apply for Page 40 of 58 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Wed Aug 06 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 00:15:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7469/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined direct recruitment and permitting the degree and post graduate degree holders to apply for such posts would, according to the State, not result in healthy competition rather, it would result in unhealthy competition since the degree and post graduate degree holders by the dint of their superior qualifications would still march over the diploma holders. The State, to this Court, has not committed any arbitrariness or unreasonableness while taking into account that there are large number of institutions in the State imparting education in the course of diploma in civil engineering and whereas, permitting the degree holders to compete for the post in question would result in higher unemployment in the category of diploma holders.
14.20. To this Court, it would appear that the State is required to act in overall benefit of its citizens and the fact that the State has deemed it appropriate to ensure that a level playing field is maintained amongst diploma and degree holders by noting that degree holders have opportunity of competing for direct recruitment in the promotional posts to the post of Additional Assistant Engineer (Civil) i.e. Additional Engineer and Deputy Executive Engineer, while excluding the Page 41 of 58 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Wed Aug 06 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 00:15:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7469/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined degree holders from competing for selection to the post of Additional Assistant Engineer (Civil), is, to this Court, ensuring fairness and equality in matters of public employment and by no stretch of imagination could it be said that the decision taken by the State is manifestly arbitrary, without adequate determining principles or unreasonable. 14.21. At this stage, this Court seeks to rely upon observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Dr. Subramanian Swamy vs. Director, Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr., reported in 2014 (8) SCC 682. Paragraph no.49 of the said decision being relevant for the present purpose, is quoted hereinbelow for benefit:-
"49. Where there is challenge to the constitutional validity of a law enacted by the legislature, the Court must keep in view that there is always a presumption of constitutionality of an enactment, and a clear transgression of constitutional principles must be shown. The fundamental nature and importance of the legislative process needs to be recognised by the Court and due regard and deference must be accorded to the legislative process. Where the legislation is sought to be challenged as being unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, the Court must remind itself to the principles relating to the applicability of Article 14 in relation to invalidation of legislation. The two dimensions of Article 14 in its application to legislation and rendering legislation invalid are now well recognised and these are: (i) discrimination, based on an impermissible or invalid classification, Page 42 of 58 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Wed Aug 06 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 00:15:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7469/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined and (ii) excessive delegation of powers conferment of uncanalised and unguided powers on the executive, whether in the form of delegated legislation or by way of conferment of authority to pass administrative orders--if such conferment is without any guidance, control or checks, it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court also needs to be mindful that a legislation does not become unconstitutional merely because there is another view or because another method may be considered to be as good or even more effective, like any issue of social, or even economic policy. It is well settled that the courts do not substitute their views on what the policy is."
[Emphasis supplied] 14.22. The later observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which has been emphasized hereinabove, to this Court, would be applicable in the fact situation more particularly the present issue considered from the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it could be observed that the amendment would not become unconstitutional since there is a different view or a different method which could be applied which could be or even more effective more particularly since it is a very settled principle that Courts would not substitute their views on what policy is.
14.23. To this Court, it would appear that the State having taken a decision considering the larger canvas, as referred to hereinabove i.e. large number of colleges imparting education in the course of diploma in civil engineering, inclusion of Page 43 of 58 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Wed Aug 06 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 00:15:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7469/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined degree and post graduate degree holders resulting in an unhealthy competition since degree holders and post graduate degree holders would still get a march order diploma holders resulting in lack of employment choices to diploma holders, the nature of work being more suitable for persons having the qualification of diploma, high rate of attrition etc. are well withing the domain of a policy decision by the State and while it appears to this Court that the said policy is to further social justice, at the same time, even if a better policy i.e. of permitting more qualified degree or post graduate degree holders to compete may be available, but ultimately, it is for the State to take a final decision on policy issues and unless the policy is found to be manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable or without adequate determining principles, which the present subordinate legislation is not, Courts would normally not interfere.
14.24. At this stage, this Court further seeks to rely upon observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Zahoor Ahmad Rather (supra). Paragraph 27 of the said decision being relevant for the present purpose, is reproduced hereinbelow for benefit:-
Page 44 of 58 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Wed Aug 06 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 00:15:54 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7469/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined "27. While prescribing the qualifications for a post, the State, as employer, may legitimately bear in mind several features including the nature of the job, the aptitudes requisite for the efficient discharge of duties, the functionality of a qualification and the content of the course of studies which leads up to the acquisition of a qualification. The state is entrusted with the authority to assess the needs of its public services. Exigencies of administration, it is trite law, fall within the domain of administrative decision making. The state as a public employer may well take into account social perspectives that require the creation of job opportunities across the societal structure. All these are essentially matters of policy.
Judicial review must tread warily. That is why the decision in Jyoti KK must be understood in the context of a specific statutory rule under which the holding of a higher qualification which presupposes the acquisition of a lower qualification was considered to be sufficient for the post. It was in the context of specific rule that the decision in Jyoti KK turned. "
14.25. Considered from the perspective of the observations above, it would appear that the State had, while prescribing the exclusion clause, taken into consideration the nature of job, the aptitude required for efficient discharge of duties and the requirement of creating job opportunities across societal structures. It is the State which is entrusted with the authority to assess the needs of its public services and the exclusion is essentially a matter of public policy and Courts while reviewing the decision of the State in policy matters, are required to trend warily.Page 45 of 58 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Wed Aug 06 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 00:15:54 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7469/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined 14.26. This Court further seeks to rely upon observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Khalsa University and Anr. (supra) relied upon by learned Counsel for the petitioners. Paragraph no.62 of the said decision being relevant for the present purpose, is quoted hereinbelow for benefit:-
"62. It can thus be seen that in the said case, it was held that the test of manifest arbitrariness as laid down by this Court in various judgments would also apply to invalidate legislation as well as subordinate legislation under Article 14. It was held that manifest arbitrariness must be something done by the legislature capriciously, irrationally and/or without adequate determining principle. It further goes on to hold that when something is done which is excessive and disproportionate, such a legislation would be manifestly arbitrary. It, in unequivocal terms, held that arbitrariness in the sense of manifest arbitrariness would apply to negate legislation under Article 14 of the Constitution. In para 95, it was observed that the case of Natural Resources Allocation, In re, Special Reference No. 1 of 201218, did not lay down a proposition that legislation can never be struck down as being arbitrary. This Court, after referring to all the earlier judgments including Ajay Hasia and Others v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and Others, stated that legislation can be struck down on the ground that it is arbitrary under Article 14 of the Constitution. However, arbitrariness when applied to legislation cannot be used loosely."
14.27. What is sought to be emphasized by this Court from the aforesaid observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is that while manifest arbitrariness would be a good ground to Page 46 of 58 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Wed Aug 06 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 00:15:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7469/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined invalidate a subordinate legislation, yet, arbitrariness when applied to legislation (or subordinate legislation), cannot be used loosely. To this Court, it would appear that excluding a category of persons having a particular qualification from being eligible to be appointed for the post in question, based upon adequate determining principles, could not be termed as manifestly arbitrary and whereas, while the extant of the term 'manifest arbitrariness' is attempted to be extended by the petitioners, to this Court, such a loose construct could not be countenanced.
14.28. Having regard to the above discussion, to this Court, it would appear that the subordinate legislation i.e. the amendment in the recruitment rule would not fall foul of Article 14 on the ground of manifest arbitrariness and hence, issue no.(i) is answered accordingly.
15. Now, coming to the second issue as to whether the classification or exclusion is based on an intelligible differentia and the differentia does not have any nexus to the object sought to be achieved.
15.1. At the outset, it would be apposite to refer to the Page 47 of 58 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Wed Aug 06 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 00:15:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7469/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined law on this issue as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court which observation would serve as a guiding light to this Court. While the petitioners have referred to paragraph no.31 of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Triloki Nath Khosha (supra), to this Court, it would appear that paragraphs no.31 and 32 both would be relevant for the present purpose and are reproduced hereinbelow for benefit:-
"31. Classification, however, is fraught with the danger that it may produce artificial inequalities and therefore, the right to classify is hedged in with salient restraints; or else, the guarantee of equality will be submerged in class legislation masquerading as laws meant to govern well marked classes characterized by different and distinct attainments. Classification, therefore, must be truly founded on substantial differences which distinguish persons grouped together from those left out of the group and such differential attributes must bear a just and rational relation to the object sought to be achieved.
32. Judicial scrutiny can therefore extend only to the consideration whether the classification rests on a reasonable basis and whether it bears nexus with the object in view. It cannot extend to embarking upon a nice or mathematical evaluation of the basis of classification, for were such an inquiry permisible it would be open to the Courts to substitute their own judgment for that of the legislature or the Rule- making authority on the need to classify or the desirability of achieving a particular object."
(Emphasis supplied) "
15.2. This Court further seeks to rely upon observations of the seven-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Page 48 of 58 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Wed Aug 06 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 00:15:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7469/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined Re: The Special Courts Bill, 1978 reported in 1979 (1) SCC 380. The Hon'ble Supreme Court at paragraph no.74 has laid down certain propositions and whereas, for the purpose of the present petition, the propositions no.5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 11 being relevant for the present purpose, are being reproduced hereinbelow for benefit:-
"5. By the process of classification, the State has the power of determining who should be regarded as a class for purposes of legislation and in relation to a law enacted on a particular subject. This power, no doubt, in some degree is likely to produce some inequality; but if a law deals with the liberties of a number of well-defined classes, it is not open to the charge of denial of equal protection on the ground that it has no application to other persons. Classification thus means segregation in classes which have a systematic relation, usually found in common properties and characteristics. It postulates a rational basis and does not mean herding together of certain persons and classes arbitrarily.
6. The law can make and set apart the classes according to the needs and exigencies of the society and as suggested by experience. It can recognise even degree of evil, but the classification should never be arbitrary, artificial or evasive.
7. The classification must not be arbitrary but must be rational, that is to say, it must not only be based on some qualities or characteristics which are to be found in all the persons grouped together and not in others who are left out but those qualities or characteristics must have a reasonable relation to the object of the legislation. In order to pass the test, two conditions must be fulfilled, namely, (1) that the classification must be founded on an intelligible Page 49 of 58 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Wed Aug 06 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 00:15:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7469/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined differentia which distinguishes those that are grouped together from others and (2) that differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the Act.
8. The differentia which is the basis of the classification and the object of the Act are distinct things and what is necessary is that there must be a nexus between them. In short, while Article 14 forbids class discrimination by conferring privileges or imposing liabilities upon persons arbitrarily selected out of a large number of other persons similarly situated in relation to the privileges sought to be conferred or the liabilities proposed to be imposed, it does not forbid classification for the purpose of legislation, provided such classification is not arbitrary in the sense above mentioned.
9. If the legislative policy is clear and definite and as an effective method of carrying out that policy a discretion is vested by the statute upon a body of administrators or officers to make selective application of the law to certain classes or groups of persons, the statute itself cannot be condemned as a piece of discriminatory legislation. In such cases, the power given to the executive body would import a duty on it to classify the subject-matter of legislation in accordance with the objective indicated in the statute. If the administrative body proceeds to classify persons or things on a basis which has no rational relation to the objective of the legislature, its action can be annulled as offending against the equal protection clause. On the other hand, if the statute itself does not disclose a definite policy or objective and it confers authority on another to make selection at its pleasure, the statute would be held on the face of it to be discriminatory, irrespective of the way in which it is applied.
10. XXX XXX XXX
11. Classification necessarily implies the making of a distinction or discrimination between persons Page 50 of 58 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Wed Aug 06 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 00:15:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7469/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined classified and those who are not members of that class. It is the essence of a classification that upon the class are cast duties and burdens different from those resting upon the general public. Indeed, the very idea of classification is that of inequality, so that it goes without saying that the mere fact of inequality in no manner determines the matter of constitutionality. "
15.3. Lastly, this Court seeks to rely upon observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of Kerala and Anr. vs. N.M.Thomas and Ors., reported in 1976 (2) SCC
310. Paragraph no.83 of the said decision being relevant for the present purpose, is reproduced hereinbelow for benefit:-
"83. A classification is reasonable if it includes all persons who are similarly situated with respect to the purpose of the law. In other words, the classification must be founded on some reasonable ground which distinguishes persons who are grouped together and the ground of distinction must have rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the rule or even the rules in question. It is a mistake to assume a priori that there can be no classification within a class, say, the Lower Division Clerks. If there are intelligible differentia which separate a group within that class from the rest and that differentia have nexus with the object of classification, I see no objection to a further classification within the class. It is no doubt a paradox that though in one sense classification brings about inequality, it is promotive of equality if its object is to bring those who share a common characteristic under a class for differential treatment for sufficient and justifiable reasons. In this view, I have no doubt that the principle laid down in All-India Station Masters' and Assistant Station Masters' Association v. General Manager, Central Railway and Others(1), S. G. Jaisinghani v. Union of Page 51 of 58 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Wed Aug 06 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 00:15:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7469/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined India and Others (supra) and State of Jammu & Kashmir v. Triloki Nath Khosa & Ors.(2) has no application here."
15.4. The law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as could be discernible from the above decisions is that while classification is not impermissible, yet, the classification is required to be rational and not arbitrary. The classification should clearly be based on qualities or characteristics which are found in the persons grouped together and not in others who are left out and whereas, the qualities and characteristics must have a reasonable relation to the object of the legislation. The twin test, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, for determining whether a classification is valid or not is of two class being (i) that the classification must be based on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes the persons who are grouped together from those who are not; and (ii) that the differentia must have a nexus to the object sought to be achieved.
15.5. Considering the fact situation from the perspective of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as noticed hereinabove, it would appear that the object of the classification was to ensure that a select group of persons i.e. Page 52 of 58 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Wed Aug 06 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 00:15:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7469/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined only such persons having diploma in civil engineering or equivalent diplomas, are eligible to apply. The classification which is questioned is as regards exclusion of persons other than diploma holders from competing in the selection process. To this Court, it would appear that the classification is clearly based on the intelligible differentia since the State has come to a conclusion that by permitting persons other than diploma holders i.e. with comparatively higher qualification i.e. of having a degree and a post graduate degree in civil engineering, would lead to shrinking the already limited avenues available with diploma holders to compete for public employment. The State has noticed that there being large number of colleges imparting study in diploma in civil engineering, permitting degree holders and post graduate degree holders to steal a march over the diploma holders, would result in lack of employment opportunities to diploma holders. The State has also considered that degree and post graduate degree holders have many other avenues to appear for direct selection including the next higher post of Assistant Engineer and even higher post of Deputy Executive Engineer. The State has also noticed that since degree and post graduate degree holders have various other avenues to apply Page 53 of 58 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Wed Aug 06 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 00:15:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7469/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined for selection, the rate of attrition amongst degree holders is very high. The State has also taken into consideration the fact that the duties and responsibilities for the post in question are better suitable for persons having diploma holders. 15.6. To this Court, it would appear that the classification made between the diploma holders and degree holders for the purpose of applying for selection to the post in question, is based on the above intelligible differentia which distinguishes both the classes. It would also appear that the intelligible differentia has a reasonable nexus to the object sought to be achieved. To this Court, it would not appear that the classification is either discriminatory or based on impermissible or invalid classification and whereas, it would appear that the State is well justified in the classification more particularly having regard to the object the State intends to achieve.
15.7. At this stage, this Court seeks to rely upon observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Satya Dev Bhagaur vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2022 (5) SCC 314. Paragraph Nos.16, 17 and 18 of the said decision being relevant for the present purpose, are reproduced Page 54 of 58 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Wed Aug 06 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 00:15:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7469/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined hereinbelow for benefit:-
"16. It is trite that the Courts would be slow in interfering in the policy matters, unless the policy is found to be palpably discriminatory and arbitrary. This court would not interfere with the policy decision when a State is in a position to point out that there is intelligible differentia in application of policy and that such intelligible differentia has a nexus with the object sought to be achieved.
17. This Court in the case of Krishnan Kakkanth vs. Government of Kerala and others has observed thus:
"36. To ascertain unreasonableness and arbitrariness in the context of Article 14 of the Constitution, it is not necessary to enter upon any exercise for finding out the wisdom in the policy decision of the State Government. It is immaterial whether a better or more comprehensive policy decision could have been taken. It is equally immaterial if it can be demonstrated that the policy decision is unwise and is likely to defeat the purpose for which such decision has been taken. Unless the policy decision is demonstrably capricious or arbitrary and not informed by any reason whatsoever or it suffers from the vice of discrimination or infringes any statute or provisions of the Constitution, the policy decision cannot be struck down. It should be borne in mind that except for the limited purpose of testing a public policy in the context of illegality and unconstitutionality, courts should avoid "embarking on uncharted ocean of public policy"." (1997) 9 SCC 495
18. A three-Judge bench of this Court in Sher Singh and Others vs. Union of India and Others has observed thus:
"As a matter of fact the courts would be slow in interfering with matters of government policy except where it is shown that the decision is unfair, mala fide or Page 55 of 58 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Wed Aug 06 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 00:15:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7469/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined contrary to any statutory directions." "
15.8. Considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it would appear that while the Courts would slow in interfering in policy matters and unless the policy is found to be discriminatory and arbitrary, which this Court does not find in the present issue, there would not be any interference by the Courts. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held that if the State is in a position to point out that there is an intelligible differentia in application of the policy which has a nexus with the object sought to be achieved, this Court would not interfere and as noticed hereinabove, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is indeed an intelligible differentia which has a nexus which sought to be achieved. Again, it would appear to this Court that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down that unless a policy is demonstrably capricious or arbitrary or suffers from the vice of discrimination or infringes any statute or provisions of the constitution, the policy cannot be struck down merely because a better or more comprehensive decision could be taken. As observed, this Court is of the considered opinion that neither the policy i.e. the amendment is capricious nor arbitrary nor Page 56 of 58 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Wed Aug 06 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 00:15:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7469/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined discriminatory. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, merely because persons with higher qualification could be available if the amendment is struck down, is not a reasonable and permissible view.
15.9. Thus, to this Court, it would clearly appear that the classification whereby holders of degree and post graduate degree in civil engineering were excluded from being eligible to apply for the post in question, was based on an intelligible differentia and the intelligible differentia had a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved. Issue no.(ii) is also answered accordingly.
16. Having regard to the above discussion, observation and conclusions, this Court finds no merit in the present writ petition and the same is hereby disposed of as rejected.
17. At this stage, it is clarified that since this Court was seized of the present petition, the last date for filling up of the application for the post in question had been extended intermittently and whereas, learned AGP Mr.Pathak would, relying upon circular dated 31.07.2025 of the Gujarat Subordinate Service Selection Board - respondent no.2 Page 57 of 58 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Wed Aug 06 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 00:15:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7469/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025 undefined herein, submit that the same is now extended till 18.08.2025.
(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J) Bhoomi Page 58 of 58 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Wed Aug 06 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 00:15:54 IST 2025