Gujarat High Court
Mukesh vs Gujarat on 8 September, 2011
Author: Anant S. Dave
Bench: Anant S. Dave
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/13437/2011 5/ 5 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 13437 of 2011
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 12965 of 2011
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 12967 of 2011
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 12969 of 2011
======================================
MUKESH
KANTILAL VAHIA - Petitioner(s)
Versus
GUJARAT
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION & 1 - Respondent(s)
======================================
Appearance :
Mr.
Shalin Mehta for Mr. V.J. Bhatt for the petitioners
Mr.
D.G. Shukla for the respondent
======================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
Date
: 08/09/2011
COMMON
ORAL ORDER
1 In this group of petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners make a common prayer to quash the final list published by the Gujarat Public Service Commission [for short, 'GPSC'] on 5th August 2011 which declares the petitioners as not eligible for the appointments of Principal, Class-II.
2 Since the common questions of facts and law are involved in these four petitions, at the request of the learned counsel for the parties, they are disposed of by this common order.
3 Vinu Ramesh Chawla, petitioner of Special Civil Application No.12965 of 2011 holds a Bachelor's Degree in Engineering in Computer Branch from Gujarat University and, after graduation, till the petitioner applied for the post of Principal, Class-II, as advertised by GPSC, served on contract basis as a Group Kaushala Sahayak (Computer) In Industrial Training Institute, Gandhinagar.
3.1 Mukesh Kantilal Vahia, petitioner of Special Civil Application No.13437 of 2011 holds a Bachelor's Degree in Engineering in Computer Science from M.S. University, Vadodara and from 7.11.1996 he is working on regular basis as Foreman Instructor Cadre in Industrial Training Institute, Bardoli.
3.2 Purvi M. Patel, petitioner of Special Civil Application No.12967 of 2011 holds a Diploma in Computer Engineering from Government Polytechnic and she started working in Industrial Training Institute, Dehgram from 2002 and at present is working on regular basis as a Foreman Instructor Cadre in Industrial Training Institute, Gandhinagar.
3.3 Bharti Natvarlal Raval, petitioner of Special Civil Application No.12969 of 2011 holds a Diploma in Computer Engineering from Government Polytechnic, Ahmedabad and she has work experience from 15.4.1995 till 1.7.2011 at different places as stated in paragraph 3 of the petition.
3.4 The GPSC issued public advertisement dated 28th January 2009 for various posts to be filled in, which included the post of Principal, Class-II, in the Department of Labour & Employment, State of Gujarat. In pursuance of the above advertisement, the petitioners applied and appeared in the written examination on 15th June 2010 and were declared 'pass'. However, in the final list published by the GPSC on 5th August 2011, the seat numbers of the petitioners did not find place and a note appended to the final list states that the petitioners do not fulfill the provisions of the said public advertisement on the ground of not possessing adequate educational qualifications. The petitioners were not called for the interview and, hence, the present petitions under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India.
4 Mr. Shalin Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioners, would contend that the advertisement was issued by the GPSC under the Recruitment Rules, 1984 and Rule 4 provides for eligibility for appointment by direct selection and, accordingly, educational qualification of a degree in various branches of engineering is provided in Rule 4(b)(i) whereas Rule 4(b)(ii) prescribes educational qualification of a diploma in first class in various branches of engineering. Rule 4(c) provides for experience and Rule 4(d) provides about knowledge of language. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, Rule 4(b)(i) or
(ii) does not expressly mention the branch of computer engineering but the said Rule ends with 'or its equivalent qualifications'. Holding of a degree/diploma of engineering in computer would be equivalent to the disciplines of engineering mentioned in Rule 4(B)(i) and (ii) and the petitioners would have been held eligible and ought not to have been excluded from the selection and, therefore, the GPSC be directed to issue call letters for interview to the petitioners by issuing appropriate direction.
4.1 It is further submitted that the new Recruitment Rules, 2009 framed in exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, by Notification dated 16th December 2009 issued by the Labour & Employment Department, Government of Gujarat providing for qualification for the post of Principal, Class II, does prescribe educational qualification in Rule 4 having a degree, inter-alia, in the branch of computer engineering and the post in question basically carries the duty to be performed on administrative side and the petitioners having adequate work experience would be considered, if a proper selection is adopted, to compete in the interview further.
5 Mr. Dipak Shukla, learned advocate for the respondent, relied on the affidavit-in-reply filed by the Deputy Secretary of the GPSC and submitted that, allowing the petitioners appearing in the preliminary test conducted by the GPSC on 25th April 2010 by itself would not confer any right on the petitioners who do not possess the basic educational qualification as per the advertisement and it is an admitted fact that the petitioners do not possess the degree or diploma in the specific disciplines of engineering as advertised. It is further submitted that since the advertisement was published on 28th January 2009, the notification dated 16th December 2009 introducing new recruitment rules for the post in question will not apply to the cases of the petitioners. It is submitted that in absence of any other ground germane for exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitions deserve to be rejected.
6 The relevant rules in the Recruitment Rules, 1984 read as under:
"4. To be eligible for appointment by direct selection, a candidate shall -
(a) xx xx
(b) possess -
(i) a degree in (1) Mechanical Engineering or (2) Electrical Engineering or (3) Civil Engineering or (4) Textile Technology or (5) Metallurgy or (6) Chemical Engineering or (7) Architecture or (8) Electronics or (9) Instrumentation and Control, or (10) Electronics and Communication Engineering or (11) Textile Engineering or (12) Production Engineering of a recognized University or its equivalent qualifications or:
[ii] a diploma in (1) Mechanical Engineering or (2) Electrical Engineering or (3) Civil Engineering or (4) Textile Technology or (5) Chemical Engineering or (6) Auto Engineering or (7) Printing Technology or (8) Electronic Radio Engienering or (9) Electronics and Sound Engineering or (10) Textile Mfg. Or (11) Production Engineering or (12) Industrial Electronic or (13) Metallurgy or (14) Plastic Engineering or (15) Machine Tool Technology or (16) Tool Engineering or (17) Welding Technology or (18) Radio Technology of a recognized institution or its equivalent qualification:
[c] xx [d] xx "
7 Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the record including the advertisement and the result declared by the GPSC which is part of the record of the case, it transpires that it is not in dispute that the petitioners had no prescribed educational qualification in any of the disciplines of engineering as advertised and the degree in computer engineering or diploma was never a branch, which qualified them for appointment for the post in question. It is further a matter on record that 'or its equivalent qualification' would not mean branch or discipline of engineering but 'equivalent qualification' of a degree or diploma as the case may be as prescribed under Rule 4(b)(i)(ii). Rule 4(b)(i) or (ii) does not prescribe a degree/diploma in Computer Engineering, but specifically prescribes other disciplines of engineering. The GPSC is bound to conduct examination for appointment to the services of the State in terms of the Rules of 1984 framed by the State as advertised. A procedure evolved for laying down the mode and manner for consideration of educational qualification can be interfered with only when it is arbitrary, discriminatory or wholly unfair and unless the procedure adopted by the GPSC is found to be arbitrary or against the known principles for fair play, as held by the Apex Court, the writ courts would not ordinarily interfere therewith in the matter of qualification prescribed and selection undertaken accordingly.
8 In the result, the petitions are rejected. Notice is discharged in each petition with no order as to costs.
(ANANT S. DAVE, J.) (swamy) Top