Gujarat High Court
Sohil Amadbhai Gadhiya vs State Of Gujarat on 28 January, 2020
Author: Biren Vaishnav
Bench: Biren Vaishnav
C/SCA/14764/2017 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14764 of 2017
==========================================================
SOHIL AMADBHAI GADHIYA & 4 other(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 2 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PA JADEJA(3726) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
MR. ISHAN JOSHI, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER(1) for the
Respondent(s) No. 1,2
MR PREMAL R JOSHI(1327) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
Date : 28/01/2020
ORAL ORDER
1 By way of the order dated 31.08.2017, this Court passed an extensive interim order, which for convenience is reproduced herein below:
"1. Heard learned advocate Mr. P. A. Jadeja for the petitioners, learned advocate Mr. Premal R. Joshi for the respondent No.3 and learned AGP Ms. Asmita Patel for the respondent No.1 - State.
2. Both these petitions are arising out the same recruitment process by the respondents and raising similar issues and therefore, they are heard together and such common order is passed.
In Special Civil Application No.14742 of 2017, there are in all 16 petitioners; whereas in Special Civil Application No.14764 of 2017, there are in all five petitioners, but such five petitioners are common in both the petitions as petitioners No.1 to 5 in both the petitions respectively.
3. In Special Civil Application No.14742 of 2017, petitioners have challenged the list dated 10.7.2017, copy of which is produced at Annexure- D. Pursuant to Page 1 of 7 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 30 01:37:44 IST 2020 C/SCA/14764/2017 ORDER Advertisement No.72 of 2015 for recruiting Lecturers in Government Polytechnic across the State of Gujarat in various branches of Engineering.
4. In Special Civil Application No.14764 of 2017, petitioners have challenged the list dated 10.7.2017, copy of which is produced at Annexure- D. Pursuant to Advertisement No.97 of 2015 for recruiting Assistant Professors in Government Degree Engineering College across the State of Gujarat.
5. Irrespective of different advertisements for different posts in both the petitions, the basic issue is common in both the petitions inasmuch as in the advertisement for recruitment, the respondents have disclosed the vacancy for the post of Lecturers and Asst. Professors for the subject of Information Technology, with a clear disclosure regarding educational qualification, that the candidate/s must have cleared the basic qualification of B.E./B.Tech in Information Technology and if requisite number of candidates with the same qualification are not available during selection process, then and then, candidates having equivalent qualification, shall be considered. So far as equivalent qualifications are concerned, the Government Resolution dated 14.6.2016 provides for equivalency of various graduate and post- graduate degree courses in Engineering or Technology, copy of which is produced at Annexure-E in both the petitions. The entire dispute rests upon such G.R. The respondent No.3 - GPSC has interpreted it in their own manner though the language of the G.R. Is very much clear and without having any doubt in the interpretation of its provisions.
The relevant portion of the G.R. Being resolution by the Government reads as under:- "After careful consideration and clubbing all the previous Government Resolution in this regard read from serial No.(2) to (9) above the Government is pleased to decide equivalent graduate and post graduate degree courses in engineering or technology as requisite qualifications for appointment to the posts of Lecturers, Heads of Departments and Principals in Government Polytechnics and Assistant Professors, Associate Professors, Professors and Principals in Government Engineering Colleges, as shown in Annexure annexed to this resolution.Page 2 of 7 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 30 01:37:44 IST 2020 C/SCA/14764/2017 ORDER
While recruiting the candidate for various teaching post mentioned in column 2, preference shall be given to the candidates of the appropriate basic bench shown in column 3.
In the Annexure, column 3 shows appropriate basic degree branch (B.E./B.Tech) in Engineering or Technology for the post mentioned in column 2 while column 4 refers to the equivalent branch of M.E./M.Tech degree in engineering or technology.
If a candidate is not available in basic degree branch mentioned in column 3 then candidates of corresponding B.E./B.Tech bench can be considered as mentioned in column 5 but such candidate must be having any one of the post graduate degree shown in column No.4 of the relevant basic branch."
The perusal of the G.R. Makes it clear that with such G.R., one annexure was attached, disclosing appropriate, equivalent and corresponding branches for recruitment of faculties in Government Engineering Colleges and Polytechnic. In such annexure, there are in all five columns viz. (1) Number; (2) Cadre; (3) Appropriate basic branch (B.E./B.Tech); (4) Equivalent branch (for M.E./M.Tech only); and (5) Corresponding B.E./B.Tech with equivalent Post- Graduate Branch shown in Column No.4. Based upon details in such column, it is categorically resolved by the Government and conveyed to respondent No.3 that while recruiting the candidates for various teaching posts mentioned in Col.No.2, preference shall be given to the candidates of the appropriate basic branch shown in Col.No.3. In the annexure, Col.No.3 shows appropriate basic degree of B.E. And B.Tech in Engineering or Technology for the post mentioned in Col.No.2; whereas, Col.No.4 refers to the equivalent branch of M.E./M.Tech degree course. It is also made clear that if a candidate is not available in basic degree branch mentioned in Col.No.3, then, candidates of corresponding B.E./B.Tech branch can be considered, as mentioned in Col.No.5, but such candidate/s must be having any one of the post graduate degree shown in Col.No.4 of the relevant basic branch.
6. Therefore, when G.R. Is very much clear, whereby there is little scope to entertain the candidates of equivalent or corresponding branch when candidates of basic branch are available, and though during first round of Page 3 of 7 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 30 01:37:44 IST 2020 C/SCA/14764/2017 ORDER scrutiny of applications, when respondent No.3 - GPSC was able to find out candidates in respective basic branch of Information Technology, unfortunately while calling for the candidates for further scrutiny, the respondent No.3 - GPSC has considered the applications of candidates having degree of equivalent branch and allowed them to compete with the candidates of basic branch. While doing so, respondent No.3 has taken a contention that they have given preference to candidates of equivalent branch, who have obtained more marks in their credit, contending that preference as per G.R. Does not main 'n' block preference preference irrespective of inter se merit. For the purpose, a reference was made to the case of State of U.P. Vs. Om Prakash without disclosing its citation. It is further contented that requisite academic qualification for the post of Lecturer and Asst.
Professor in Information Technology is though Information Technology itself, when G.R. Provides that equivalent branch has Computer Engineering/Technology or Computer Science and Technology, it would mean to consider that the candidates having equivalent qualifications are entitled to compete with those candidates possessing basic degree.
7. Unfortunately, respondent No.3 has failed to consider the G.R. Dated 14.6.2016, which specifically confirms that while recruiting the candidates for various teaching course, mentioned in Col.No.2 of the annexure, preference shall be given to the candidates of the appropriate basic branch shown in Col.No.3. Therefore, when appropriate number of candidates having qualification of basic branch are available, then first preference is to be given to them and if candidates are not available in basic degree branch mentioned in Col.No.3, then and then only candidates of corresponding B.Ed./B.Tech branch can be considered as mentioned in Col.No.5.
Whereas, Col.No.4 refers to the equivalent branch of M.E./M.Tech degree course.
8. Though the State Government has not filed a detailed reply, learned AGP has endorsed the view canvassed by Page 4 of 7 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 30 01:37:44 IST 2020 C/SCA/14764/2017 ORDER the petitioners, contending that respondent No.3 has wrongly interpreted the G.R. To substantiate their misdeed.
9. In addition to what is discussed herein above, though facts and G.R. Are quite clearly in favour of the petitioners, it would be appropriate to recollect here that the requirement of particular qualification for particular post, is with specific object, both academically as well as administratively, but unfortunately, respondent No.3 - GPSC, which is only an agency to complete the recruitment process has travelled beyond their jurisdiction in considering something different than what is intended and asked for by the Principal I.e. Government (Employer), who has to appoint the Lecturers and Assistant Professors. It cannot be ignored that if Principal - Government (Employer) wants Lecturers and Asst. Professors on the subject of Information Technology, then, it is none of the concern of respondent No.3 to plead and suggest that candidates, who have studied some other subject, though they may be considered as equivalent to the subject of Information Technology, would be more suitable to the Principal - Government (Employer). It cannot be ignored that in such a field, if you appoint a person with higher or better qualification, then, on day one, to get the salary, he would accept the assignment, but as and when he gets a chance and suitable job in his own field with better prospects, then, he would leave such job, resulting into repeated exercise of recruitment and wastage of time and energy in making him/her comfortable with the Principal - Government (Employer). It is also necessary to realise that though several qualifications are considered equal, it is to be considered only when candidates of basic qualification are not available and it also clear that though particular subject may be common, there are different branches within main subject viz. Hardware, software, e- commerce, security, network, troubleshooting, development, support etc.
10. In view of above facts and circumstances, matters require detailed consideration. Hence, rule, returnable on 16.11.2017. Learned advocate Mr. Premal Joshi waives service of notice of rule for respondent No.3 and learned AGP waives service of notice of rule for Page 5 of 7 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 30 01:37:44 IST 2020 C/SCA/14764/2017 ORDER respondent No.1 - State in both matters. For the same set of reasons, there is need to grant interim relief in both the matters, in following terms.
11. Respondents are directed to permit the petitioners to participate in the oral interview to be conducted by the respondent No.3 - GPSC after verifying their documents and to consider them for selection on the post for which they have applied considering their basic qualification and to do the needful if at all they succeed in such competitive recruitment process. However, it is made clear that such interim relief would certainly not create any equity or right in favour of the petitioners for getting confirmed appointment, if otherwise they are not successful in competitive selection process".
12. Direct service is permitted."
2 The case of the petitioners in the petition, as is evident from the order referred to hereinabove is that, though, there was a circular of 14.06.2016 and the stress was that when candidates' basic qualification is available, candidates having equivalent qualifications cannot form part of exercise of selection. It is in these circumstances that the Court passed an interim order. That interim order was a subject matter of challenge in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1338 of 2017 and cognate matters, where a statement was made by the counsel for the GPSC that they will comply with the interim order as far as this petition is concerned.
3 Now, the GPSC takes a stand that in view of the fact that interviews are already over from 26.07.2017 to 29.07.2017, Page 6 of 7 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 30 01:37:44 IST 2020 C/SCA/14764/2017 ORDER the petitioners were not interviewed. From the annexure to the affidavit-in-reply filed by the GPSC on 23.08.2017, it can be seen that from the list of 125 candidates shortlisted, apparently 71 candidates are from the equivalent branch.
Without answering the contention, in light of the affidavit, the Court passed that interim order. There is no reason, therefore, before proceeding with the final hearing of the matter that a direction be issued to the GPSC that they ought to comply with the order of 31.08.2017 in view of categorical stand of the GPSC that the recommendations of selected candidates had been sent on 10.08.2017 to the State and the State had agreed to act on that recommendation.
4 By an interim order, the GPSC is directed to comply and interview the petitioners within a period of four weeks from today and report compliance of the order dated 31.08.2017.
Stand over to 09.03.2020.
(BIREN VAISHNAV, J) Bimal Page 7 of 7 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 30 01:37:44 IST 2020