Gujarat High Court
Jadav Harshadkumar Vijaysinh vs State Of Gujarat on 16 April, 2018
Author: K.M.Thaker
Bench: K.M.Thaker
C/SCA/16823/2015 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16823 of 2015
JADAV HARSHADKUMAR VIJAYSINH
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
Appearance:
MR NK MAJMUDAR(430) for the PETITIONER(s) No.
1,10,11,12,13,14,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
MR DM DEVNANI AGP for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED BY DS(5) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1,2,3
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
Date : 16/04/2018
ORAL ORDER
Heard Mr. Majmudar, learned advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Devnani, learned AGP for respondent State.
2. In this petition, the petitioners have prayed, inter alia, that:-
"17-B) issue appropriate writ, order or direction and be pleased to quash and set aside the Clause-5 of the Advertisement No. DET/ZO15165/12DET/201516/15 to the extent that the same provides the methodology for evaluation of merits by way of conducting examinations for two papers i.e. Paper-1 and Paper-2 and the same may kindly be declared as illegal, illogical, arbitrary, discriminatory and to the aforesaid extent the said recruitment procedure prescribed in Clause-5 of the advertisement No.DET/2015165/12DETI/201516/15 be quashed and set aside and the same may be declared as violative of Appendix-l of G.R. dated 13/9/2001 and the same may be declared as violative of Recruitment Rules published by State of Gujarat as well as violative of Recruitment Rules.
Regulations/directives published. by the NCVT and Trades Manual and the same may be quashed and set aside and the respondent authorities be directed to undertake de-novo recruitment procedure after rectifying the mistake occurred in respect of prescribing methodology for recruitment procedure as per clause-5 and the entire advertisement be quashed and set aside;
Page 1 C/SCA/16823/2015 ORDER C) issue appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Government Authorities to grant relaxation in upper age limit criteria by invoking powers vested in the Government on the basis of Rule-16(2) and 16(3) of the Gujarat Civil Services (Classification & Recruitment) Rules, and the Hon'ble Court may kindly issue appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Government Authorities to grant relaxation in upper age limit on the basis of recent declaration made by the Government of Gujarat in respect of relaxation of upper age limit by extending the same for further 5 years and therefore, considering the same the Hon'ble Court may kindly direct the respondent authorities to permit the petitioners to submit the application forms by permitting the petitioners to submit the same in person is. through hard copy by treating the petitioners as eligible for upper age limit criteria;
G. Be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction and be pleased to quash and set aside the advertisement published through Notification dated 03.09.2015 or Hon'ble Court may kindly issue appropriate writ, order or direction restraining the respondents, their officers from undertaking recruitment process /finalizing recruitment process pursuant to the said notification till the proposal for proposed amendment of upper age limit criteria for the post of Supervisor Instructor has been sent by the concerned respondent authorities as per the Government Resolution dated 06.10.2015 to the General Administration Department and till the rules for upper age limit are been enacted, finalized and notified."
H. issue appropriate writ, order or direction and be pleased to invoke the relaxation clause, precisely Rule 16B(b) r/w Rule-8(2) of the Gujarat Civil Services [Classification & Recruitment (General)] Rules, 1967 and the petitioners nos.4 to 7 and 10 to 13 be considered for granting relaxation in respect of the applicability of rules qua upper age limit in view of the aforesaid rules and the respondents be further directed to permit the aforesaid petitioners to submit application forms on the basis of the advertisement in question by permitting the petitioners to submit hard copies of the application forms;"
3. So as to support and justify the relief prayed for in the petition, the petitioners have averred and stated, inter alia, that:-
"3.1) The petitioners state the petitioners possess necessary qualification and eligibility criteria prescribed under relevant recruitment rules for filling-up the post of Supervisor Instructor under various different Engineering Trades. The details of the petitioners have been prepared in a Tabular Form statement which is annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE-A to this petition. The petitioners state that Union of india, Labour & Employment Department had exercised powers Page 2 C/SCA/16823/2015 ORDER vested in it by virtue of powers vested through Article-73 of the Constitution of India, as the subject of Technical Education would fall in central list and by virtue of the same, by way of statutory enactment, by way of an Act of the Parliament, the National Council for Vocational Trade (for short 'NCVT'), was brought into existence i.e. NCVT was bought by way of passing the law by Government of india, Ministry of Labour, Director General of Employment & Training. The said parent body NCVT is having authority to prescribe curriculum for theoretical and practical subjects for various courses for various industrial institutions in various States through-out India, the said NCVT is also having powers to provide qualification criteria for various posts which are to be filled in various industrial Training institutes in various States through-out India. in sum and substance the said NCVT is a Regulatory Body and State Governments are obliged or State Governments have to frame/publish Rules, Regulations tor qualification criteria of various posts in Industrial Training Institutes as well as for curriculum or various trades in industrial Training Institutes in various States in consonance with the directives issued by the NCVT and the NCVT Issued directives from time to time which is binding to all State Governments i.e. Industrial Training Institution labour & Employment Department in all the States In India.
3.2) The petitioners state that the Recruitment Rules for the appointment to the post of Junior Instructors in Industrial Training Institutes came to be published vide Notification dated 23/12/1969. The said post / junior post subsequently designated as Craft Instructor and now presently again the said post is me designated as Supervisor Instructor. The subject matter of the present petition is the recent advertisement for the post of Supervisor Instructor and the said Recruitment Rules which have been published on 23/12/1969 are applicable for the post of Supervisor Instructor. The petitioners state that thereafter the said Rules came to be further amended by way at resolution dated 6/2/1971. Annexed hereto and marked ANNEXURE-B to this petition is a copy of the said Resolution dated 6/2/1971. The petitioners state that again in 1984 a Notification dated 27/6/1984 came to be published. Annexed hereto and marked ANNEXURE-C to this petition is a notification dated 27/6/1984.
3.3) The petitioners state that even in 2001 one Resolution came to. be published on 13/9/2001 and by way of publication of the said Resolution, Appendix-l was introduced which prescribes the methodology for determination of comparative merit amongst the incumbents having different qualifications who become eligible to seek appointment on the post of Craft Instructors/Supervisor Instructors. Annexed hereto and marked ANNEXURE-D to this petition is a copy of the said Resolution dated 13/9/2001. The petitioners state that in fact as per relevant recruitment rules, the incumbent having qualification of S.S.C. and possess further qualification in the nature of
(i) National Trade Certificate or (ii) National Apprenticeship Certificate or (iii) Diploma in appropriate Branch was considered as a valid qualification. Thus, the certificate course or apprenticeship course or diploma course all were equivalent qualifications, and the same came to be published/prescribed in consonance with the directives published by the parent body i.e. NCVT. In the year 2001 as Page 3 C/SCA/16823/2015 ORDER mentioned herein above, by way of resolution the Appendix-l was introduced which provided some more weightage for the particular qualification i.e. to Degree and Diploma holders, though the Recruitment Rules provided Certificate Course or Apprenticeship Course or Degree or Diploma all aforesaid qualifications as equivalent qualifications and all were required to be treated at par, the Appendix-l of the said GR.
gave some more preference to the Degree and Diploma holders and caused injustice to the incumbents having Craft Training Instructors (Now it is now as Advance Training Instructors
-ATI). Therefore, even petition came to be preferred challenging the aforesaid methodology/Appendix annexed to the GR. Dated 13/9/2001 by way of preferring petition by other petitioners i.e. Special Civil Application No.4806/2010. The learned Single Judge was pleased to pass an order dated 21/4/2010 and was pleased to dismiss the said petition against which the Letters Patent Appeal No.1162/2010 came to be preferred. However, by order dated 5/5/2015 the said Letters Patent Appeal came to be dismissed. Annexed hereto and marked ANNEXURE-E collectively to this petition are the copies of the orders dated 21/4/2010 and 5/5/2015 passed in S.C.A. as well as in L.P.A. Respectively.
3.4) The petitioners state that the fact remains that the GR. of 2001 was challenged and the methodol09y annexed to the said G.R. came to be upheld by the Hon'ble Division Bench. Thus, the criteria for assessment/evaluation of merits for filling-up the posts of Craft Instructors/Supervisor Instructors and for undertaking Selection Procedure, the GR. Of 2001 came to be up- held.
4. The petitioners state that surprisingly and shockingly way back in the year 2008, the State of Gujarat had published a Notification for filling-up the posts of Supervisor instructors and the said amended recruitment rules came to be published by publication of Notification dated 29/9/2008. Annexed hereto and marked ANNEXURE-F to this petition is a copy of the said Notification dated 29/9/2008. The petitioners state that the Apprenticeship Certificate as well as Craft Instructors Training Certificate course and the qualification on the aforesaid basis came to be removed from the Recruitment Rules and, therefore, even some other incumbents preferred a petition challenging the aforesaid Recruitment Rules by way of preferring Special Civil Application No.17516/2012, however, the learned Single Judge was pleased to dismiss the said petition by order dated 22/1/2013 in S.C.A. 17516/2012. Against the said order Letters Patent Appeal No.277/2014 came to be preferred which came to be rejected by the Hon'ble Division Bench. That, even Special Leave Petition was preferred, however, the same was permitted to be withdrawn by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
5. The petitioners state that in fact the other incumbents have challenged the aforesaid resolution of 2001 as well as the Recruitment Rules of 2008 as injustice was meted-out to the incumbents having qualification of Craft Training instructors, qualification or Apprenticeship Certificate Course. The petitioners crave leave to refer to and rely upon the order dated 19/4/2002 4/5/2002 passed in Special Civil Application No.11944/2001. Annexed hereto and marked ANNEXURE-G collectively to this petition are the copies of the order dated Page 4 C/SCA/16823/2015 ORDER 19/4/2002 4/5/2002. The petitioners also crave leave to refer to and rely upon the judgment dated 19/2/2014 passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench (Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice K.S. Jhaveri and Hon'ble Mr.Justice A.G. Uraizee) in Letters Patent Appeal No.1876/2007 with Letters Patent No.1877/2007 and other group of matters. Annexed hereto and marked ANNEXURE-H to this petition is a copy of the said judgment/order dated 19/2/2014."
4. From the submissions by learned advocates for the petitioners and the respondents, it has emerged that essentially and in substance, the petitioners raised two claims viz. (a) against the introduction of/requirement of passing written examination; and (b) for age relaxation.
4.1 It is not in dispute that in respect of both grievance raised by the petitioners in present petition and the relief which are prayed for by the petitioners, related issues have been considered by Division Bench in two separate Letters Patent Appeals viz. Letters Patent Appeal No.496 of 2016 and 454 of 2016.
4.2 In Letters Patent Appeal No.496 of 2016, Division Bench considered decision by learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.19278 of 2015 wherein clause No.5 of the Page 5 C/SCA/16823/2015 ORDER advertisement came to be challenged to the extent the said clause prescribed methodology for evaluation of merits by way of conducting examination.
4.3 It has also emerged from the record that learned Single Judge rejected the challenge against the said methodology.
4.4 The learned Single Judge rejected the challenge against the said methodology vide order dated 15.12.2015 which was carried in appeal in Letters Patent Appeal No.496 of 2016.
4.5 The said Letters Patent Appeal came to be dismissed by order dated 21.8.2017. The said order dated 21.8.2017 reads thus:-
"Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 15th December 2015 passed in Special Civil Application No. 19278 of 2015 by which the learned Single Judge has dismissed the said writ petition, the original petitioner has preferred the present Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.
2. We have heard learned advocate Shri NK Majmudar appearing on behalf of the appellant-original petitioner and Shri Hardik Vora, learned AGP for the respondent-State. We have also perused the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge.
3. At the outset, it is required to be noted that before the learned Single Judge, the appellant-original petitioner has inter alia prayed for the following reliefs :
Page 6 C/SCA/16823/2015 ORDER [B] issue appropriate writ, order or direction and be pleased to quash and set aisde the Clause 5 of the Advertisement No. DET/201516/1 to DET/ 201516/15 to the extent that the same provides the methodology for evaluation of merits by way of conducting examinations for two papers ie., paper- 1 and paper 2 and the same may kindly be declared as illegal, illogical, arbitrary, discriminatory and to the aforesaid extent the said recruitment procedure prescribed in Clause 5 of the advertisement No. DET/201516/1 to DET/201516/15 be quashed and set-aside and the same may be declared as violative of Appendix 1 of GR dated 13th September 2001 and the same may be declared as violative of Recruitment Rules published by State of Gujarat as well as violative of Recruitment Rules, Regulations/ directives published by the NCVT and Trades Manual and the same may be quashed and set aisde and the respondent-authorities be directed to undertake de novo recruitment procedure after rectifying the mistake occurred in respect of prescribing methodology for recruitment procedure as per Clause 5 and the entire advertisement be quashed and set-aside.
5. Having heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length and considering the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge and the reasons given, it cannot be said that the learned Single Judge has committed any error in dismissing the petition.
5.1 It is required to be noted that the methodology of evaluation /written examination was as such applicable to all the candidates, who applied. Unless it is found that introduction of written examination in question was either mala fide and/or to favour somebody, it is not open for any candidate to challenge the criteria/introduction of the written exa4mination. As rightly observed by the learned Single Judge, the State Government can go beyond the minimum qualification prescribed by NCVT. The learned Single Judge has also noted that introducing written examination for the post in question, the State Government also took into consideration recommendations of the NCVT, as far as minimum qualification are concerned.
6. We see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. Under the circumstances, the present Letters Patent Appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Notice discharged."
5. In light of said order, it becomes clear that this Court has already adjudicated the grievance Page 7 C/SCA/16823/2015 ORDER against the methodology prescribed by virtue of clause No.5 of the advertisement.
5.1 Therefore, challenge by present petitioners against the very provision does not deserve to be entertained and maintained.
5.2 The petitioners' grievance against the said provision is already decided by Division Bench vide order dated 21.8.2017.
5.3 In view of said decision, the petitioners' grievance raised in present petition and the relief prayed for by the petitioners vide paragraph No.17-B is not entertained and rejected in light of and in terms of decision dated 21.8.2017.
6. So far as second grievance by the petitioners is concerned, i.e. with regard to request for age relaxation, it is necessary to mention that even the said issue/request is already considered by Page 8 C/SCA/16823/2015 ORDER Division Bench in another / separate appeal i.e. Letters Patent Appeal No.454 of 2016.
6.1 The petitioners have, as mentioned above, prayed, inter alia, that the case of petitioners No. 4 to 7 and 10 to 13 be considered for granting relaxation in upper age limit in view of the rules and the petitioners have also prayed that the respondents be directed to permit the said petitioners to submit application forms on the basis of advertisement.
6.2 In this context, it is relevant to mention that the issue which the Division Bench considered in Letters Patent Appeal No.454 of 2016 is reflected from the details summarized in paragraph Nos.1 to 4 of the decision dated 21.6.2016, which read thus:-
"1. By way of the present appeal which is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, the appellants original petitioners seek to challenge the order dated 29.10.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge by which the petition filed by the petitioners came to be dismissed.
2. Heard learned advocate Mr.M.J.Mehta appearing for the appellants. Learned advocate submitted that on 23.12.1969 the State Government had framed rules for regulating recruitment to the post of Junior Instructor at the Industrial Training Institute in Gujarat Education Services, Class III. As per the Page 9 C/SCA/16823/2015 ORDER said Recruitment Rules, the candidates who possessed the National Trade Certificate (NTC) or National Apprenticeship Certificate (NAC) were held eligible for applying for the said post. In the year 1998, an advertisement was published in the concerned newspaper for the recruitment for the post of Craft Instructor (Automobiles). The petitioners, pursuant to the said advertisement, had applied for the same as the petitioners were fulfilling all the eligibility criteria as prescribed under the aforesaid Recruitment Rules. Petitioners also received call letters from the concerned authority. However, thereafter the said recruitment process was dropped. Once again, similar type of recruitment process was initiated but subsequently dropped by the respondent authorities.
3. Learned advocate thereafter submitted that another public advertisement was issued in the concerned newspaper in the year 2001 for the recruitment of Craft Instructor, wherein also the petitioners participated and call letters were issued to them directing them to remain present for the interview. However, at the relevant point of time, 40% of marks was being counted for the candidates who possessed ATI/CTI qualification. The Government, after initiation of the recruitment process, had changed the eligibility criteria vide G.R. dated 13.09.2001 and thereby reduced the said criteria from 40% to 5%. It is contended that because of the said change made in the eligibility criteria, petitioners could not get the appointment. Petitioners, therefore, filed a petition before this Court. The same was dismissed, against which LPA came to be filed. The same was also dismissed.
4. It is thereafter contended that the work of recruitment was thereafter handed over to Gujarat Technological University (GTU) by the Government and therefore a notification came to be issued on 29.09.2008 whereby recruitment process for the post of Craft Instructor was initiated. However, during the said process, Apprenticeship Certificate as well as Craft Instructor Training Certificate course and the qualification on the aforesaid basis came to be removed from the eligibility criteria. Therefore, some of the aggrieved persons challenged the said action of the respondent authorities before this Court by filing a petition. However, the said petition was dismissed and the LPA preferred against the said decision was also dismissed by the Division Bench. The Honble Supreme Court thereafter permitted the concerned parties to withdraw the Special Leave Petition filed before the Honble Apex Court."
6.3 As can be seen from above quoted observations, the petitioners claimed, in light of factual backdrop, more particularly the fact that the petitioners had submitted applications in response to the advertisement, however, the Page 10 C/SCA/16823/2015 ORDER selection process was dropped and again the recruitment process was initiated subsequently and that therefore, the appellants before Hon'ble Division Bench prayed that they should be considered eligible for age relaxation.
6.4 The said submission and request came to be rejected by learned Single Judge vide order dated 29.10.2015 in Special Civil Application No.18260 of 2015 wherein learned Single Judge observed, inter alia, that:-
6. As could be noticed from the pleadings, the petitioners are aggrieved by the fact that the rules do not prescribe the age limit of more than 30 years. All throughout it is urged that the petitioners could not participate in the earlier round of recruitment conducted in the year 2001 for want of inclusion of NAC, NTC and CTI qualifications in the eligibility criteria. It is the advanced age of the petitioners which has resulted into their preferring this petition. It is to be noted that the petitioners were qualified in the year 1994, thereafter the recruitment process was undertaken in the year 1998. However, that was dropped eventually, and therefore, in the year 2001, the petitioners participated in the selection process.
According to them, the marks which were otherwise meant for this kind of certificate courses were 40, and later on that came to be reduced to 5, therefore, their selection could not be made possible.
7. This had been challenged by the petitioner, and such challenge has failed. They lost in Special Civil Application and also in Letters Patent Appeal as well.
8. In the years 2008 and 2013, when there was non-inclusion of NAC, NTC and CTI affecting their eligibility criteria, the petitioners did not challenge the said action, but others did, and the same also failed at admission stage.
9. The petitioners presently are 42 and 43 years old. To challenge the recruitment rules, which prescribe 30 years of age limit to be eligible as the maximum age, simply because petitioners possess educational qualification which now is considered valid can hardly be a basis. It is to be noted all throughout the maximum age limit was 30 years of course with applicability of age relaxation guidelines. As could be noted, in the wake of Page 11 C/SCA/16823/2015 ORDER the amendment in the Gujarat Civil Services Classification and Recruitment (General) Rules, 1967, which has been published by way of a notification in September 2015, the age of general category candidates has been enhanced to 35 years, and for scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and socially economic and backward classes, the age limit was enhanced to 40 years. Already such relaxation is available for all those candidates, who participate in the recruitment process. Being over aged, the petitioners did not meet with the age criteria prescribed in the advertisement, and that per se cannot be a ground for challenging the recruitment process. Even otherwise, it is found that in earlier round of recruitment process, the challenge of the petitioners or other similarly situated petitioners, who did participate in the process, has failed. The petition is devoid of any merits. It deserves to be rejected and dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs."
6.5 The said decision was carried in appeal being Letters Patent Appeal No.454 of 2016. Hon'ble Division Bench considered the challenge against the said decision and held, inter alia, that:-
"5. In the aforesaid background, now it is contended that in the year 2013, recruitment process was started wherein also NTC/NAC and CTI qualifications were excluded from the eligibility criteria. Subsequently, by notification dated 03.09.2015 issued for the recruitment to the post of Supervisory Instructor, NTC/NAC and CTI were included in the eligibility criteria. However, vide G.R. dated 06.10.2015, the age limit for applying for the said post came to be modified by which upper age limit was increased from 30 years to 35 years. It is further contended that vide notification dated 03.09.2015, certificate courses of NTC/NAC and CTI have been recognized and therefore petitioners have made representation to relax the age criteria as they have attained the age of 42 and 43 years respectively. However, their request is not considered and therefore petitioners had preferred the aforesaid petition with a prayer to quash and set aside the notification dated 03.09.2015 and G.R. dated 06.10.2015 passed by the respondent authorities qua the petitioners insofar as the criteria regarding upper age limit is concerned. It was also prayed that the respondents be directed to permit the present petitioners to participate in the recruitment process in question. Learned advocate submitted that the learned Single Judge by impugned judgment dismissed the petition and therefore present appeal is filed.
6. Learned advocate Mr. Mehta urged before this Court that the petitioners participated in the recruitment process in the year 1998-1999 and call letters were also received by them. However, such recruitment process was dropped.
Page 12 C/SCA/16823/2015 ORDER Thereafter in the recruitment process which was held in the year 2008 and 2013, qualifications of NTC/NAC and CTI were excluded from the eligibility criteria and therefore petitioners could not apply in the said recruitment process. Now, once again the aforesaid qualifications are included in the eligibility criteria vide notification dated 03.09.2015. However, though the age limit is relaxed from 30 years to 35 years, petitioners are not in a position to participate in the said process as they have attained the age of 42 and 43 years respectively. The learned Single Judge has not properly considered the aforesaid aspects and therefore the impugned order be quashed and set aside.
7. We have considered the submissions canvassed on behalf of learned advocate appearing for the petitioners. We have also gone through the material produced on record including the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge.
8. It has emerged from the record that so far as the recruitment process undertaken by the respondent authorities in the year 1998-1999 is concerned, the same was dropped. However, the petitioners have not challenged the said action at the relevant point of time. In the year 2001, petitioners participated in the selection process. However, at that point of time 40% of marks were being counted for the candidates who possessed ATI/CTI qualification and the said criteria was reduced from 40% to 5%. The petitioners challenged the said action of the respondent authorities by filing a petition before this Court. However, the learned Single Judge dismissed the petition and the said order came to be confirmed by the Division Bench in L.P.A. filed by the petitioners. Similarly, in the years 2008 and 2013 there was no inclusion of NTC/NAC and CTI in the eligibility criteria and the said action of the respondent authorities was challenged by some other persons by filing petition before this Court. However, the said petition was dismissed. It is relevant to note that petitioners have not challenged the said decision of the respondent authorities by filing petition before this Court.
9. Therefore, at this stage, it is not open for the petitioners to challenge the earlier action of the respondent authorities of changing the criteria from time to time in the present case. The decision which is impugned in the petition is with regard to relaxation of the upper age limit from 30 years to 35 years and it is contended that the same is to be relaxed so as to accommodate the petitioners who are aged 42 and 43 years respectively.
10. At this stage, it is required to be noted that in the Recruitment Rules which were framed by issuance of Notification dated 23.12.1969 for the post in question, the Government has fixed the upper age limit of 30 years. The relevant Rule reads as under:
No.GH/SH/1100/TSA/1068/78937, (ii) GH: In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to article 309 of the Constitution of India, the Governor of Gujarat Page 13 C/SCA/16823/2015 ORDER hereby makes the following rules to provide for regulating recruitment to the post of Junior Instructor at the Industrial Training Institute in Gujarat Education Service, Class-III namely:-
1. These rules may be called the Junior Instructor at the Industrial Training Institute Recruitment Rules, 1969.
2. Appointment to the post of Junior Instructor at the Industrial Training Institute in Gujarat Education Service, Class-III shall be made by direct selection.
3. To be eligible for appointment to the post mentioned in rule 2 a candidate must:-
(a) Be not more than 30 years of age.
xxx xxx xxx
11. Now, while exercising powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the Governor of Gujarat has amended the Recruitment Rules of 1967, which provides as under:
No.CS/33/2015/CRR/112008/282323/G-5:-In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to article 309 of the Constitution of India, the Governor of Gujarat hereby makes the following rules further to amend the Gujarat Civil Services Classification and Recruitment (General) Rules, 1967, namely:-
1. These rules may be called the Gujarat Civil Services Classification and Recruitment (General) (Third Amendment) Rules, 2015.
2. In the Gujarat Civil Service Classification and Recruitment (General) Rules, 1967 in rule 8-,
(i) In sub-rule (9), for the figures and word 30 years occurring at two places, the figures and word 35 years shall be substituted;
(ii) in sub-rule (10), for the figures and word 28 years occurring at two places, the figures and word 33 years shall be substituted.
12. Thus, the recruitment rules so far as upper age limit is concerned, are amended and the Government has thought it fit to increase the upper age limit up to 35 years by way of policy decision. Thus, it is not open for the petitioners to contend that now the said age limit is further to be increased up to 43 years so that the petitioners can participate in the said recruitment process. Merely because the petitioners possessed the educational qualification which is now considered as valid can hardly be a basis for relaxation of the age limit from 30 years to 42 or 43 years. We have also gone through the reasonings given by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the petition and we are in agreement with the same.
13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, present appeal is devoid of any merits and therefore the same is dismissed."
Page 14 C/SCA/16823/2015 ORDER 6.6 From above quoted observations and decisions by learned Single Judge and Hon'ble Division Bench, it emerges that the said request (i.e. second prayer by the petitioners in present petition) is also considered, adjudicated and rejected by the Court.
7. In that view of the matter, there is no justification or base to entertain the petitioners' request prayed for in present petition, more particularly paragraph No.7(C), 7G and 7(H).
8. Consequently, the petition stands disposed of in terms of and in light of order dated 21.8.2017 in Letters Patent Appeal No.496 of 2016 and order dated 21.6.2016 in Letters Patent Appeal No.454 of 2016.
Orders accordingly.
(K.M.THAKER, J) KAUSHIK D. CHAUHAN Page 15