Gujarat High Court
Manisha vs State on 14 November, 2011
Author: Anant S. Dave
Bench: Anant S. Dave
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/6982/2011 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6982 of 2011
=========================================================
MANISHA
VITHALBHAI PATEL - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT THROUGH ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
PARESH UPADHYAY for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) :
1,
NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 2,
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for
Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
Date
: 06/09/2011
ORAL
ORDER
Heard learned Advocates for the parties.
The facts in brief giving rise to this petition are as under :-
Gujarat Public Service Commission (GPSC) invited applications for Combined Competitive Examination for Class I and II posts. On 26.04.2011, GPSC issued result notification, wherein the name of the petitioner was included at merit rank No.144. On 06.05.2011, the petitioner was given appointment as Section Officer (Gujarat Public Service Commission) denying higher preferences of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Section Officer in Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar or as the next alternative in Vidhansabha at Gandhinagar. It is the case of the petitioner that a candidate with less merit has been given appointment as Section Officer (Sachivalaya) and the denial on part of the authorities to give the said appointment to the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and against the settled position of law.
In answer to the Notice issued by this Court, learned Assistant Government Pleader has placed reliance on Rule 9 of Gujarat Civil Services (Class I and II) Competitive Examination Rules, 2000 framed in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India and so notified by the General Administration Department, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar on 19.10.2000. Rule 9 reads as under :-
"9.
(1) A candidate at the time of interview test shall indicate in his own hand writing, the order of preferences for the posts to which he desires to be considered for appointment in such manner as may be prescribed by the Commission:
Provided that the preference once given by the candidate shall be treated as final and no request for revision, addition, alteration or change in the preference shall be entertained by the Commission or by the Government.
(2)(a) The order of preference for the posts indicated by the candidate shall not confer any right for appointment to those posts. Having regard to the rank in the order of merit and the number of posts available, the preference given by the candidate shall be considered by the Government at the time of his appointment.
(b) Where a candidate has not given preference for any post, or the candidate has given preference only for a few posts, and the number of posts for which he has given preference are not available to accommodate the candidate as per his preference, such candidate shall be considered for appointment to any of the remaining posts after the process of appointment of the other candidates, who have given preference for all the scheduled posts, is completed.(3)
The appointment of a candidate to a particular post shall be subject to the provision of recruitment rules in force relating to that post.
(4)Where a candidate fails to join the post offered to him, his name shall be deleted from the list of candidates recommended by the Commission for appointment.
(5)Where the candidate has been appointed to a particular post, no request shall be entertained by the Government for change of appointment to another post."
In view of the above Rule 2(a), the choice of the petitioner for preference to the post of Section Officer, Sachivalaya cannot be acceded to and once, the candidate is selected and recommended by the Public Service Commission and appointments are given, individual merit will not apply in the matter of posting and there being no difference in pay scale and other pre-requisites, the claim of petitioner does not merit acceptance. That place and posting in the department is ordinary within the domain of the executive-employer and Rule 2(a) of the rules does not confer any right on the appointee and choice and preference exercised by the incumbent is only for administrative convenience and exigency, no case is made out to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, this petition is rejected. Notice discharged.
Sd/-
(Anant S. Dave, J.) Caroline Top