Gujarat High Court
Gnaneshwary Dushyantkumar Shah vs State Of Gujarat on 20 August, 2025
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/866/2025 ORDER DATED: 20/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 866 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1156 of 2016
==========================================================
GNANESHWARY DUSHYANTKUMAR SHAH
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
PARTY IN PERSON(5000) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR.KAMAL TRIVEDI, ADVOCATE GENERAL with MS. ANKITA RAJPUT,
ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER with MR. SANJAY UDHWANI,
ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 1,3
MR. PRAKASH JANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE with MR HARSHEEL D
SHUKLA(6158) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE
SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 20/08/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)
1. Heard Mr. Prakash Jani, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Harsheel D. Shukla for the respondent - Gujarat Public Service Commission (GPSC), on the notice issued to the officer posted as the Deputy Secretary, GPSC vide order dated 13.08.2025. Inviting attention of the Court to the affidavit dated 20.08.2025, it is submitted that the officer tenders an unconditional apology for the mistake committed by him in the affidavit prepared, signed and sworn by him on 27.11.2017. Taking note of the above, Page 1 of 28 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Fri Aug 29 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Aug 29 23:39:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/866/2025 ORDER DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined while issuing warning to the officer concerned to remain careful in future, we accept the apology tendered to us. The notice issued vide order dated 13.08.2025 is hereby discharged.
2. This intra-court appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 25.11.2024, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant herein namely Gnaneshwary Dushyantkumar Shah, the party in person, has been dismissed holding that there was no error in the selection made by the GPSC, which was governed by the procedure/rules for regulating the selection, framed by the GPSC. The learned Single Judge has opined that the petitioner has been declared unsuccessful by the selection committee consisting of five members, constituted by the GPSC. The method of selection was only the interview and the petitioner having participated in the interview, had attained less marks than the qualifying marks. In the interview held by an expert body, no interference within the scope of Article 226 of the Constitution of India is called for. The learned Single Judge has concluded that the GPSC has duly followed the Gujarat Public Service Page 2 of 28 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Fri Aug 29 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Aug 29 23:39:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/866/2025 ORDER DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined Commission Procedure Rules as also the terms of the advertisement, which is in consonance with the Rules and Regulations governing the selection, and hence, no error can be found in the procedure conducted by the selection committee.
3. On the issues raised by the petitioner about the applicability of All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) Regulations for selection to the post in question, it was opined by the learned Single Judge that once the petitioner had appeared in the interview, i.e. participated in the selection without any protest, she cannot be permitted to turn around and challenge the selection procedure adopted by the GPSC.
4. Both the aforesaid reasonings given by the learned Single Judge for dismissal of the writ petition challenging the result of selection based on interview, are assailed in the present appeal with the submissions made by the appellant, appearing as party-in-person, that the petitioner possess the qualification for selection to the post of the Professor (Plastic Engineering). The selection to the post in question was to be governed by the Regulations framed Page 3 of 28 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Fri Aug 29 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Aug 29 23:39:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/866/2025 ORDER DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined by the AICTE named as All India Council for Technical Education (Career Advancement Scheme for the Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Technical Institutions) (Degree) Regulations, 2012 (in short "AICTE, Regulations, 2012") notified in the Government of India Gazette dated 08.11.2012. A reading of Clause 1.2 of the AICTE Regulations, 2012, indicates that the said rule apply to all technical institutions approved by the AICTE and Universities including Institutions deemed to be Universities imparting technical education and such other courses/programs and areas, as notified by the AICTE from time to time.
5. On going through the scheme of AICTE Regulations, 2012, pertinent is to note that the regulations contain guidance for constitution of selection committees for selection of Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, Professor for direct recruitment as well as for the promotion under the Career Advancement Scheme.
6. In the present case, we are concerned with the direct recruitment to the post of Professor (Plastic Engineering) notified vide public advertisement no. 49/2015-16 dated Page 4 of 28 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Fri Aug 29 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Aug 29 23:39:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/866/2025 ORDER DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined 23.09.2015, inviting applications for seven posts of Professors in various branches including Plastic Engineering Branch of Government Engineering Government Colleges in the State of Gujarat. One post of Professor in Plastic Engineering was notified in the advertisement and the appellant - original petitioner had participated in the interview held on 17.12.2015. The dispute in the writ petition was about the procedure for selection to the post of Professor adopted by the GPSC in the interview held on 17.12.2015.
7. As per the case of the petitioner, the interview panel was not in confirmity with the AICTE Regulations, 2012, inasmuch as, some of the members of the interview panel were less qualified than the petitioner. Further challenge was to the procedure of only interview adopted by the selection committee. It is the categorical case of the petitioner that no criteria/guidelines was set out by the interview panel for awarding marks in the interview nor there is any indication in the result declared by the GPSC as regards the criteria on which the petitioner had been evaluated. The contention is that the interview panel was Page 5 of 28 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Fri Aug 29 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Aug 29 23:39:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/866/2025 ORDER DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined required to give appropriate weightage to educational qualifications and experience for determining the eligibility of the person for the post, in order to ensure that the selection is fair and reasonable. It was contended by the petitioner in the writ petition itself that the personal interview of the petitioner was conducted by a panel of six members in total and the petitioner had done fairly well but she had attained only 28 marks in the selection. A complaint was filed by the petitioner before the Principal Secretary (Higher and Technical Education) alleging discrepancies in the interview.
8. The petitioner placed reliance on Table II (C) contained in the Appendix - I to the Regulations, 2012, which provides for minimum scores for Academic Performance Index (API) for direct recruitment of teachers in University departments/Colleges and weightages in selection committees, to be considered along with other specified eligibility qualifications stipulated in the Regulations. For the post of Professor, the selection committee criteria/weightages (total weightages = 100) was divided in 4 areas of assessment of suitability of the candidate for Page 6 of 28 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Fri Aug 29 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Aug 29 23:39:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/866/2025 ORDER DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined selection to the post of professor, which read as under:-
a) Academic Background (20%)
b) Research performance based on API score and quality of publications (40%)
c) Assessment of Domain Knowledge and Teaching Skills (20%)
d) Interview performance: (20%)
9. It is, thus, clear that the percentage for interview performance to be allocated to the candidate in the interview was only 20% of the total weightage of 100. Other three criterias of assessment of performance of a candidate by the selection committee for arriving at the total marks against the weightage of 100 were also required to be evaluated by allocation of marks in the selection in question.
10. Pertinent is that, in the affidavit in reply filed by the Deputy Secretary, GPSC dated 27.11.2017, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner herein was the only candidate who had participated in the selection process for the post of Professor in Plastic Engineering. The personal interview for the post in question was held on 17.12.2015 by the selection committee of five members. It Page 7 of 28 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Fri Aug 29 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Aug 29 23:39:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/866/2025 ORDER DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined is stated in the paragraph no. 3.7 of the affidavit that as per the practice followed by the GPSC, each of the members of the selection committee was supplied with the statement of names and other relevant particulars including educational qualifications and experience of each candidates. During the interview, each member of the selection committee assesses the performance of the candidates by putting questions in respect of the subject related to the post in question including General Knowledge and General Awareness. The assessment made by the selection committee is on the criteria, such as, mental ability, capacity to analyze the issues, firmness in framing sound option, quick and sound decision etc. Overall personality of the candidate to meet the requirement of the post for which the interview is conducted, thus, assessed.
11. It is further contended in the paragraph no. 3.8 of the affidavit filed by the GPSC that after the personal interview of the candidates, the Chairman and Members of the selection committee deliberated and decided the marks to be assigned to the candidates generally by Page 8 of 28 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Fri Aug 29 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Aug 29 23:39:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/866/2025 ORDER DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined process of consensus. There is no practice to allocate marks under different heads and the marks are allocated in a single lot by the GPSC by consensus amongst members of the selection committee. Such number of marks was recorded by the Chairman on behalf of the selection committee and by each member in the tabular statement furnished to them.
12. With these averments in affidavit filed on behalf of the GPSC, it is further contended that the qualifying standard for personal interview for General Category candidates was 50 marks out of 100. There is a reference of a Rule namely the Professor, Class-I, in the Engineering or Technology in the Government Engineering Colleges, Recruitment Rules, 2012 in the affidavit of GPSC and it is sought to be submitted that there are no separate provisions in the said Rules, 2012 or any other Rules framed by the GPSC, prescribing or assigning marks to the candidates, during interview unlike any other competitive examinations where the marks are prescribed in the Examination Rules.
13. It is further contended in the paragraph no. 3.9 of the Page 9 of 28 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Fri Aug 29 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Aug 29 23:39:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/866/2025 ORDER DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined affidavit that, however, for the purposes of considering the suitability of the candidates, the general practice is to allocate the marks out of 100 and passing standard namely minimum marks is decided for different categories. A candidate obtaining marks below the passing standard/minimum marks decided by the GPSC is considered as not suitable for the post.
14. It is further contended that the details about standard/cut off marks fixed by the GPSC for the post in question was mentioned in the advertisement itself for various categories of candidates such as Un-reserved (General), SEBC, SC and ST. Passing the standard/ cut off marks for unreserved (General) category candidate as indicated in the advertisement itself was 50.
15. The further contention in the affidavit of the GPSC is that the procedure adopted by the GPSC has been upheld in various decision of this Court and since in the personal interview held on 17.12.2015, the petitioner had attained only 28 marks out of 100, less than the minimum 50 marks, in the result declared on 18.12.2015, the selection was shown as NIL and the GPSC made recommendations Page 10 of 28 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Fri Aug 29 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Aug 29 23:39:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/866/2025 ORDER DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined accordingly to the Education Department of the State on 22.12.2015.
16. From the averments made in the affidavit filed on behalf of the GPSC, atleast, it is evident that no criteria for allocation of marks, to the candidates appeared for selection to the post of professor in various branches, on any of the qualifying criterias such as academic background, research performance, assessment of domain knowledge and teaching skills was worked out. The selection in question was conducted by the selection committee constituted by the GPSC on an overall/general assessment of the candidate namely the petitioner herein, by asking questions on the areas such as subject related knowledge, general knowledge, awareness and assessment of personality. From the response of the GPSC, it is, thus, evident that there was no assessment of the academic experience/research performance etc., of the petitioner during the interview, as admittedly no such criteria were worked out as per own case of the GPSC in the procedure framed by it.
17. Having noted the stand of the GPSC in the affidavit dated Page 11 of 28 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Fri Aug 29 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Aug 29 23:39:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/866/2025 ORDER DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined 27.11.2017 by an order dated 25.07.2025, we have summoned the entire original record pertaining to the selection in question, specifically for the interview held on 17.12.2015. On perusal of the record, a detailed order dated 06.08.2025 has been passed in the following manner:-
1. Having noted by the order dated 25.07.2025, noticing the statement made in the affidavit of the Deputy Secretary, Gujarat Public Service Commission (GPSC), we have summoned the entire original record pertaining to the selection for the post in question, specifically for the interview held on 17.12.2015. When the matter was taken up today, the original record has been produced before us by Mr. Harsheel D. Shukla, learned advocate appearing for Gujarat Public Service Commission (GPSC).
2. We may note that a requisition No. GEC-112015-
1029-GH dated 05.08.2015 was sent by the Deputy Secretary, Education Department, Government of Gujarat notifying one (1) vacancy of the post in question namely the Professor, Plastic Engineering, which has been categorized in the general category. By another communication No. GEC-112015- M.P./Professor-KH dated 05.08.2015, in total 13 applications of eligible candidates were forwarded for assessment of suitability of the candidates for different posts which include one (1) application for Professor, Plastic Engineering.
3. We may also note that the interview program notified under the signature of I/c. P. S. to Chairman, GPSC dated 03.12.2015, which is at page no. '323/C' of the original record, which is the same as brought on record by the petitioner at page no. 'Z - 24' of the paper-book, and the requisition dated 05.08.2015 sent by the Secretary, Education Department, Government of Gujarat to the Secretary, GPSC record that only one eligible candidate was called for Page 12 of 28 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Fri Aug 29 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Aug 29 23:39:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/866/2025 ORDER DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined the interview held on 17.12.2015 for the post of Professor, Plastic Engineering, Class - I at Government Engineering College against advertisement No. 49/2015-16.
4. From a perusal of the aforesaid documents from the original record, it is evident that the statement made by the officer posted as Deputy Secretary, GPSC in the affidavit (paragraph no. 3.6) dated 27.11.2017, that after scrutiny of applications, two candidates satisfying the eligibility criteria were called for the personal interview for the said post, is clearly misleading. The officer of GPSC who is the deponent of the affidavit dated 27.11.2017, is required to furnish his explanation by filing his personal affidavit to explain as to why proceedings for perjury be not initiated against him for making a false statement on oath before this Court.
5. A further perusal of the original record of interview namely minutes of the meeting of interview held on 17.12.2015, prepared and signed under the signature of the Secretary on 18.12.2015 placed before us indicates that :-
"Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 17th December, 2015 to interview candidate for the post of Professor, Plastic Engineering in Govt. Engineering College, Guj. Education Service, (C.B.), Class-I, Advt. No. 49/2015-16.
2. The Committee consisted of the Chairman, Member Shri J.J. Shiyani and Member Dr. Shruti Kikani.
3. Only 01 candidate was called for interview and she remained present.
4. There is only 01 post for General category (unreserved). The Committee did not consider the candidate suitable for recommendation to the Government. The statement showing marks obtained in Viva- Voce by the unsuccessful candidate is also attached herewith.
5. The Committee regrets its inability to recommend any candidate for the 01 post as no Page 13 of 28 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Fri Aug 29 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Aug 29 23:39:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/866/2025 ORDER DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined suitable candidate was available for the same.
6. Shri A.M. Prabhakar, Principal, Govt. Engineering College, Modasa, remained present to assist the Committee as Government Nominee. Dr. Pradip Upadhyay, Principal, Central Institute of Plastic Engg. and Technology, Ahmedabad and Dr. R.N. Jagtap, Professor of Plastic Engg., Institute of Chemical Technology, Mumbai, remained present to assist the Committee as Adviser at the time of interview."
GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Result of unsuccessful Candidates.
Post:- Professor, Plastic Engineering in Govt. Engineering College, Guj. Education Service. (C.B.), Class-1, Advt. No. 49/2015-16. Date of Interview: 17th December, 2015 Minimum Qualifying Standard General: 50 Marks Marks obtained, in Viva-Voce, by the Unsuccessful candidate are as under:-
Sr. Name of Candidate E. No. Mark
s
1. Dr. Gnaneshwary Dushyantkumar 01 Fem. 28"
Shah
6. The record shows that the statement of marks in viva- voce enclosed with the minutes of the meeting prepared on 18.12.2015 was signed by the Secretary. No statement of marks prepared and signed by the members of the interview board on the date of interview i.e. 17.12.2015 has been placed before us.
7. A perusal of the minutes of the committee, extracted hereinabove, indicates that a general assessment has been made about the suitability of the petitioner who was Page 14 of 28 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Fri Aug 29 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Aug 29 23:39:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/866/2025 ORDER DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined a candidate for the post of Professor, Plastic Engineering in Government Engineering College. The minutes of the meeting records that the committee did not consider the candidate suitable for recommendation to the government.
8. It is, thus, evident from the original record that a general assessment of performance of the petitioner, a candidate for the post in question, was made by the Interview Board comprising of five members, which included two members as Government Nominees to assist the committee, that too on the basis of viva-voce only.
9. The manner in which the minutes of the meeting of the interview committee dated 17.12.2015 had been prepared on the next day, i.e. 18.12.2015 without there being any statement of marks prepared and signed by the members of the Board on the date of interview, itself makes it clear that the procedure for allocation of marks by the members of the board in the interview had not been followed.
10. We may again go through the affidavit dated 27.11.2017 filed by the Deputy Secretary, GPSC, wherein the following statement has been made in the paragraph no. 3.8:-
"3.8 I say that after the personal interview of the candidate, the Chairman and Members of the Selection Committee deliberate themselves and decide the marks to be assigned to the candidate generally by process of consensus. There is no practice to allot marks under different heads and marks are allotted in a single lot by the Respondent Commission by consensus amongst members of Selection Committee, such number of marks is recorded by the Chairman on behalf of the Selection Committee and by each Member in the tabular statement furnished to them.
11. We may simply record that neither the marks allegedly by the Chairman on behalf of the selection committee nor the marks allocated by each member in the tabular statement allegedly furnished to them do form part of the original record which has been placed before us today.Page 15 of 28 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Fri Aug 29 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Aug 29 23:39:23 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/866/2025 ORDER DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined
12. It is sought to be submitted by Mr. Harsheel D. Shukla, learned advocate appearing for the GPSC that the tabular statement furnished to each member and the marks recorded by the Chairman on behalf of the selection committee are kept in the office of the Chairman, but we do not see any reason for non- production of said record inspite of our categorical direction issued in the order dated 25.07.2025, summoning the entire original record pertaining to the selection for the post in question namely the interview held on 17.12.2015. The statement made in the affidavit dated 27.11.2017 of the Deputy Secretary, GPSC, thus, could not be substantiated from the original record produced before us today. We take strong exception to the manner in which the original record has been produced before us.
13. The further question is about the applicability of the All India Council for Technical Education Regulations, 2012 (AICTE) notified on 08.11.2012 in the Government of India Gazette dated 08.11.2012 itself. Mr. Harsheel Shukla, learned advocate appearing for the GPSC would submit that the requisition dated 05.08.2015 sent to the GPSC referred to the applicable Rules for selection to the post in question and the copy of the said Rules was also provided to the GPSC for conducting the selection process. The contention, thus, is that the GPSC cannot be said to have committed any error in conducting the selection process namely the interview in accordance with the Rules of the State.
14. As noted from the original record the requisition dated 05.08.2015, refers to the Gujarat Civil Service and Classification and Recruitment (General) Rules, 1967, though the said Rules are not applicable for recruitment to the post of Professor in Engineering or Technology in Government Engineering College in Gujarat Educational Services. It is further submitted by Mr. Harsheel Shukla, learned advocate appearing for the GPSC that the applicable Rule namely "Professor, Class - I in the Engineering or Technology in the Government Engineering Colleges, Recruitment Rules, 2012" notified in the Government Gazette dated 31.07.2012 was forwarded to the GPSC for the purpose of recruitment to the post of Professor in Government Engineering Colleges in Page 16 of 28 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Fri Aug 29 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Aug 29 23:39:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/866/2025 ORDER DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined Gujarat Educational Services.
15. Even going through the procedure prescribed in the Rules, 2012 framed by the State Government, as relied by the GPSC, pertinent is to note that the recruitment to the post in question namely Professor in Plastic Engineering, as per the said Rule was required to be made as per the grade point system, which was to be converted in equivalent marks as indicated in the table given in Rule 4 (iv) (vi). The eligibility criteria for appointment by direct selection to the post of Professor in Engineering or Technology in the Government Engineering College as per the Rule 4 of the Recruitment Rules, 2012 of the State is relevant to be noted hereinbelow:-
"(4) possess adequate knowledge of Gujarati and Hindi or both.
Explanation:-
(i) In case of research experience, good academic record and books/research paper publication/Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)/patent record as the commission may deem fit shall be required, to be submitted to the Gujarat Public Service Commission.
(ii) In case the experience in industry is considered, the same shall be at managerial level which can be considered equivalent to the post of Associate Professor with active participation record in devising. quality control, innovating, training, technical books/research paper publications/Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)/patent, etc. as deem fit by the Gujarat Public Service Commission.
(iii) Equivalence for Ph.D. is based on publication of five international Journal papers, each Journal having a cumulative impact index of not less than 2.0, with incumbent as the main author and all five publications being in the author's area of specialization.
(iv) "Relevant branch" shall be such as specified by the Government.
(v) If a class or division is not awarded, minimum aggregate 60% marks shall be considered equivalent to Page 17 of 28 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Fri Aug 29 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Aug 29 23:39:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/866/2025 ORDER DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined first class or division.
(iv) If a grade point system is adopted the cumulative grant point average (CGPA) shall be converted in equivalent marks as below:-
Grade Point Equivalent Percentage
6.25 55%
6.75 60 %
7.25 65%
7.75 70%
8.25 75%
16. A perusal of the Recruitment Rules, 2012 indicates that it requires assessment of research experience, good academic record, books/research paper publication etc, apart from any experience equivalent for Ph.D. based on publication of five international journal papers wherein, each journal having a cumulative impact in index of not less than 2.0, was required to be considered. The grade point system if adopted for allocation of equivalent marks, the Interview Committee was required to allocate marks taking into consideration all the eligibility criteria prescribed in Rule 4.
17. At the cost of repetition, it may be noted that as per own case of GPSC, there was no allocation of marks separately. The assessment of the suitability of the petitioner on any of the criteria even prescribed in the Recruitment Rules, 2012, framed by the State has not been made. We may again go through the affidavit dated 27.11.2017 of the Deputy Secretary, GPSC, wherein, there is a reference of the Recruitment Rules, 2012 notified by the State Government and it is stated therein that the said Recruitment Rules were relevant for the selection in question and hence the selection was made by holding interview only.
18. There is a further reference of the GPSC Page 18 of 28 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Fri Aug 29 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Aug 29 23:39:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/866/2025 ORDER DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined procedure Rules framed by the GPSC in its meeting held on 07.07.1962 regulating its procedure and functions to conduct the process of interview for recruitment by Direct selection. Reference of Rule 4 and 5 of the Procedure and Functions Rules of the GPSC as narrated in paragraph no. 3.5 of the said affidavit are pertinent to be noted hereinbelow:
"4.(1) When recruitment to a service or post is to be made by nomination by selection, the Commission will advise the Government to the framing of Recruitment Rules prescribing the qualifications of candidates and the conditions pertaining to such service or post.
(2) On receipt of requisition from the Government for selecting the candidates for nomination, the Commission will
(i) publish advertisements in the Gazette and in suitable newspapers and invite applications from prospective candidates mentioning the conditions of services, nature of competition, number of vacancies, manner of submission of application and other relevant material;
(ii) consider all applications received and interview such candidates as it considers most suitable for appointments; and
(iii) Forward to the Government particulars regarding candidates arranged in order of preference not exceeding the number of vacancies, who, in the opinion of the Commission, are not suitable for appointment.
5(i) The Commission shall invite such representative of the Government as may be nominated by Government to be present at the interviews referred to in Rule 3(2) (iii) and 4(2) (ii) and the representative so present may take part in deliberations of the Commission but shall not be entitled to vote.
(i) The Commission may in its discretion invite one or more experts to assist the Commission at the interviews referred to in Rules 3(2) (iii) and 4(2) (ii). The expert so present may take part in the deliberations of the Commission but shall not be entitled to vote".
19.Now, the question is as to whether the AICT Page 19 of 28 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Fri Aug 29 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Aug 29 23:39:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/866/2025 ORDER DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined Regulations, 2012 notified on 08.11.2012 would prevail over the Recruitment Rules' 2012 framed by the State Government vide notification dated 31.07.2012. To answer this question, Mr. Sanjay Udhwani, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the State respondent prays for and is granted adjournment for today.
20. On this limited question about the applicability of the AICTE Regulations, 2012, notified on 08.11.2012 on the request made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, we post the matter on 13.08.2025 at 12:30 P.M. The concerned officer of the GPSC shall file his affidavit submitting his explanation in compliance with the above directions by the next date fixed.
21. The original record, after dictation of the order has been returned back to Mr. Harsheel D. Shukla, learned advocate for GPSC, in the Court itself."
18. Having perused the original record, we have reached at the conclusion that the procedure followed by the selection committee constituted by the GPSC was not even in conformity with the Rules relied by the GPSC, for the selection in question namely the Professor in Engineering or Technology in Government Engineering College Rules, 2012.
19. The only question, thus, remains is about the applicability of the AICTE Rules, 2012. On the said question, when the matter was argued today by Mr. Kamal Trivedi, learned Advocate General, he was not in a position to confront the contention of the petitioner that the AICTE Regulations, Page 20 of 28 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Fri Aug 29 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Aug 29 23:39:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/866/2025 ORDER DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined 2012 notified in the Government of India Gazette on 08.11.2012 would be applicable for selection to the post in question, inasmuch as, the selection is pertaining to the post of teacher in a technical institutions approved by the AICTE, situated in the State of Gujarat.
20. As no plausible dispute could be raised on behalf of the State about the applicability of the AICTE Regulations, 2012, we find that the stand of GPSC that the selection was conducted as per the procedural rules framed by the GPSC, is completely misconceived.
21. Pertinent is to note that in the service jurisprudence, the selection to a particular post is guided and governed by the Recruitment Rules framed by the competent authority/body. For the post of teacher in a technical institutions, the AICTE being an apex body and as such the Rules and Regulations framed by the AICTE for governing the selection in question, would prevail on any of the procedure or Rules framed by the State Government or GPSC. In so far as the GPSC is concerned, the same is only a recruiting agency of the State and the selection to different posts advertised by the GPSC is necessarily Page 21 of 28 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Fri Aug 29 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Aug 29 23:39:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/866/2025 ORDER DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined governed by the Recruitment Rules pertaining to the particular post. In any case, the advertisement issued by the GPSC for selection to a post has to be in conformity with the Recruitment Rules governing the same. Any indication in the advertisement of any other Rule, other than the applicable Recruitment Rules to the post in question, would make the advertisement itself vulnerable. Moreover, in any case, the GPSC is required to adhere to the Recruitment Rules and the procedure framed by it, if any, is only a matter of convenience. In no manner, the procedural rules framed by the GPSC for conduct of its business, if any, prescribing for constitution of selection committee or holding examinations including interview would prevail over the Recruitment Rules. In no case can be conflicted with the Recruitment Rules governing the post in question. The stand of the GPSC that no procedure was worked out for allocation of marks on different eligibility criterias and the requirement as per the procedural rules framed by it was to make a general assessment of performance of the candidates by consensus between the members of the selection committee, itself is sufficient to hold that the entire selection process for the Page 22 of 28 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Fri Aug 29 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Aug 29 23:39:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/866/2025 ORDER DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined post in question was faulty. The GPSC cannot be permitted to argue that the selection to the post in question could have been held dehors the AICTE Regulations, 2012.
22. Considering the above, we find that the learned Single Judge has committed an error of law in dismissing the writ petition, while holding that the Rules and Regulations framed by the GPSC would prevail or govern the selection in question and the criteria for selection having been indicated in the advertisement itself, the petitioner cannot be permitted to challenge the results. It is also pertinent to note that the criteria for selection to the post in question mentioned in the advertisement, does not refer to any statutory rule. The statement in Clause 7 of the advertisement in question at page no. '182' of the paper- book is required to be noted hereinunder:-
"For direct recruitment, out of 100 marks for the personal interview, the minimum standard for selection has been set as 50 marks for the candidates of the Unreserved Category and 35 marks for the candidates belonging to the Reserved Category. Overall performance of the candidates in the Interview shall be taken into consideration by the Interview Committee and after discussion and deliberation, and the marks shall be given unanimously, based on the overall performance of the candidate during the Interview by the Interview Page 23 of 28 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Fri Aug 29 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Aug 29 23:39:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/866/2025 ORDER DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined Committee."
23. The criteria in Clause 7 is a part of the General conditions of the advertisement at Item No. 15 and cannot be relied by the GPSC to assert that the said procedure prescribed for the selection in the advertisement in question would prevail or govern the selection in question. The decision of the learned Single Judge in holding that the advertisement has laid down the criteria of the selection to the post in question, therefore, cannot be sustained.
24. Another opinion formed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition is that it was a case where the petitioner had participated in the selection process without any demur and the challenge to the result of selection was an afterthought. We are afraid to agree with the said reasoning given by the learned Single Judge for the simple reason that the candidate participating in the selection process would be convinced of the fact that the selection to the post in question shall be governed by the Recruitment Rules and the selection committee shall adhere to the procedure/criteria prescribed in the Recruitment Rule itself.
Page 24 of 28 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Fri Aug 29 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Aug 29 23:39:23 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/866/2025 ORDER DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined
25. Unless and until the candidate participated in the selection, there was no reason for him/her to doubt the effectiveness or validity of the selection process. Only after having participated in the selection and declaration of the result, the petitioner came to know that the relevant Recruitment Rules for selection were not followed by the selection committee in allocation of marks during the course of the selection.
26. The challenge made by the petitioner to the result of the selection, therefore, cannot be said to be an afterthought and the petitioner cannot be thrown out of the Court on the premise that having once participated in the selection process, she cannot be permitted to turn around to challenge to the same.
27. Reference may be made to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ramana Dayaram Shetty v.
International Airport Authority of India & Ors. reported in (1979) 3 SCC 489, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:-
It is a well-settled rule of administrative law that an executive authority must be rigorously held to the standards by which it Page 25 of 28 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Fri Aug 29 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Aug 29 23:39:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/866/2025 ORDER DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined professes its actions to be judged and it must scrupulously observe those standards on pain of invalidation of an act in violation of them.
This rule was enunciated by Mr Justice Frankfurter in Viteralli v. Saton where the learned Judge said:
"An executive agency must be rigorously held to the standards by which it professes its action to be judged ..... Accordingly, if dismissal from employment is based on a defined procedure, even though generous beyond the requirements that bind such agency, that procedure must be scrupulously observed ..... This judicially evolved rule of administrative law is now firmly established and, if I may add, rightly so. He that takes the procedural sword shall perish with the sword."
28. In view of the above discussion, we reach at an irresistible conclusion that the selection to the post of Professor (Plastic Engineering), for which the petitioner had participated in the interview held on 17.12.2015, had not been conducted in accordance with the statutory Rules pertaining to the recruitment. The result of the selection, therefore, is found to be faulty.
29. With due respect, the decision of the learned Single Judge to dismiss the writ petition on grounds noted hereinbefore is found to be erroneous.
30. Consequently, while setting aside the judgment and order dated 25.11.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge, we allowed the instant appeal. For the above discussion, the Page 26 of 28 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Fri Aug 29 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Aug 29 23:39:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/866/2025 ORDER DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined prayers made in the writ petition for quashing and setting aside the result dated 18.12.2015 is liable to be granted. The respondent no. 2 namely the GPSC is directed to conduct the process of selection fresh, by constituting a selection committee to conduct the selection process strictly in accordance with the AICTE Regulations, 2012. By way of precaution, it is provided herein that the GPSC would require to adhere to the AICTE Regulations, 2012, both for the constitution of selection committee as well as evaluation of the performance of the petitioner on the criterias for selection/wieghtage prescribed in the Regulations, 2012. Any deviation from the procedure prescribed in the Regulations, 2012 would be viewed very seriously. In order to complete the selection process in a time bound manner, the GPSC is required to issue notice to the petitioner indicating the date of interview/selection, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It needs no clarification that for the selection in question, the date of advertisement, i.e. 29.09.2015 would be relevant. The entire selection process is to be conducted as if the petitioner is participating in the selection process afresh, as on the Page 27 of 28 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Fri Aug 29 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Aug 29 23:39:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/866/2025 ORDER DATED: 20/08/2025 undefined date of the interview held on 17.12.2015.
31. The result of the selection shall be duly prepared immediately, at the most on the very next day of the selection. The result prepared by the GPSC shall be brought before this Court in a sealed cover which must included complete statement of the marks within a period of one week from the date of selection. The question to grant the other reliefs prayed by the petitioner in the petition would be subject to the result of the selection to be placed before us.
32. For decision on the merits of the petition, the matter is posted on 24.09.2025 at 02:30 P.M. (SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ ) (D.N.RAY,J) VARSHA DESAI Page 28 of 28 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Fri Aug 29 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Aug 29 23:39:23 IST 2025