Gujarat High Court
Prakash Kanaiyalal Trivedi vs Gujarat Public Service Commission & on 20 October, 2015
Author: Sonia Gokani
Bench: Sonia Gokani
C/SCA/14882/2015 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 14882 of 2015
=============================================================
PRAKASH KANAIYALAL TRIVEDI....Petitioner(s)
Versus
GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION & 1....Respondent(s)
=============================================================
Appearance:
Mr KB PUJARA, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
Mr SWAPNESHWAR GOUTAM, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR PREMAL R JOSHI, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1
=============================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI
20th October 2015
ORAL ORDER
This Court on 14th September 2015 passed the following order : "1. The petitioner herein belongs to open category. He was selected by GPSC for Gujarat Education Service, ClassI (Administrative Branch) and was appointed in the said cadre on 30.08.1997. He has served as a Lecturer in District Institute of Education and Training (DIET) and as District Primary Education Officer.
2. Pursuant to an advertisement dated 26.11.2013 issued by the Joint Director, Gujarat Education Service, ClassI (Administrative Branch) for filling in four posts of Joint Director, Gujarat Educational Service, ClassI, in the pay scale of Rs.15,60039,100 with Grade pay of Rs.7600/ the petitioner has applied for the said post. Out of the 4 posts, 3 Page 1 of 9 HC-NIC Page 1 of 9 Created On Thu Oct 22 02:31:29 IST 2015 C/SCA/14882/2015 ORDER posts are unreserved and 1 post is reserved for Socially and Educationally Backward Class. Out of 3 unreserved posts, one post is reserved for female candidate. In the event of non availability of the female candidate, the said post is required to be filled up by a male candidate.
3. It is the say of the petitioner that the respondent Gujarat Public Service Commission (for short the Commission) held Preliminary Test/Elimination Test on 15.06.2014. The petitioner appeared at the said test wherein his Roll Number is 101000243. Thereafter, Commission first published a list of 32 successful candidates on 15.12.2014, and thereafter the Commission had published second list containing wherein the number of the present petitioner was mentioned and the petitioner was called upon to submit his certificates on or before 17.04.2015. On 05.08.2015, the Commission published the seat numbers of 14 candidates eligible for oral interview. The petitioner is also issued the call letter dated 17.08.2015 for his oral interview on 16.09.2015 at 10.15 am. The petitioner proceeded on leave for the purpose of preparing for the oral interview and he has also obtained the necessary certificate dated 10.09.2015 form the Education Department, Government of Gujarat.
4. It is the say of the petitioner that on 11.09.2015 the petitioner has been served with a communication by the Commission by hand delivery along with the amended list of candidates dated 11.09.2015 who are called for the oral interview scheduled on 15th and 16th September 2015. The petitioner's interview call letter was cancelled and his name has been excluded from the list of the candidates. The Page 2 of 9 HC-NIC Page 2 of 9 Created On Thu Oct 22 02:31:29 IST 2015 C/SCA/14882/2015 ORDER petitioner has therefore preferred the present application challenging such action on the part of the respondent and praying that :
[1] impugned letter of GPSC dated 11.09.2015 and amended list of candidates be set aside;
[ii] respondents may be directed to hold the petitioner's oral interview for the post of Joint Director; [iii] stay the letter of GPSC dated 11.09.2015 and amended list of candidates;
[iv] stay the process of recruitment for the post of Joint Director scheduled to be held on 15.09.2015 and 16.09.2015 pursuant to the advertisement no.110/201314 and direction to the Commission to keep one post vacant for the petitioner while preparing the selection list for the post of Joint Director during the pendency of the petition.
5. Heard learned advocate, Mr. Pujara for the petitioner. According to him, the Office Order dated 14.10.1986 provides for calling more candidates for filling up 3 posts, but in the present case less number of candidates are issued call letters for oral interview. He has also stated that letter dated 11.09.2015 is issued on the wrong premise that they are filling up two vacancies meant for male candidates and one post for female candidate. He has urged that it is a complete misinterpretation on the part of GPSE of his own Circular. He has also urged that there is nothing on record to indicate as to why and how the petitioner name at the eleventh hours has been dropped and it would require scrutiny by this Honourable Court.
6. Learned advocate, Mr. Joshi appeared for the Commission and has relied upon his affidavitinreply filed in Special Civil Page 3 of 9 HC-NIC Page 3 of 9 Created On Thu Oct 22 02:31:29 IST 2015 C/SCA/14882/2015 ORDER Application No17288 of 2015 and requested that the same may be construed sufficient for the purpose of considering the request of the petitioner in the present petition. It is his say that out of 3 posts, one post is reserved for female candidate and therefore, two posts can be said to be meant for male candidates. Accordingly, as per the Office order dated 14.10.1986 the calculation has been done and eight persons have been called for oral interview. He further stated that in present case as there are only 2 female candidates are available instead of 6 and for the 1 post which is reserved for SEBC,4 candidates are available as against 6 candidates. It is also say that one candidates was having more merit being Roll No.101000215 and his name was left out inadvertently and therefore, there has been inclusion of such candidate and person with Roll No.10100243 needs to be excluded. It is the further say of Mr Joshi that all the four candidates who applied under SEBC category have annexed Non Creamy Layer Certificate issued by the competent authority and therefore there is no occasion for the Commission not to accept the same.
7. Learned APP, Mr. Gautam appearing for the State has urged that the State has no role to play at this stage and the GPSC is acting in accordance with the guidelines and the rules/regulations and State has nothing to add.
8. At this juncture, the Court is considering the aspect of grant of interim relief. Of course, the name of the petitioner has appeared in the written test and thereafter in the amended final list of candidates prepared on 07.08.2015 for the oral interview. As far the present petitioner is concerned, his name was already included long ago in the list of candidates, but Page 4 of 9 HC-NIC Page 4 of 9 Created On Thu Oct 22 02:31:29 IST 2015 C/SCA/14882/2015 ORDER later on, by communication dated 11.09.2015 his name has been excluded form the list of the candidates on the ground that it was by inadvertence that his name was included in the list of candidates to be called for the interview. Petition since has been served with the communication excluding his name at the last moment, he has filed the petition today.
9. The reply of the GPSC filed in Special Civil Application No. 13788 of 2015 indicates that it was wrong inclusion of the name of the petitioner and therefore the name of the petitioner has been dropped. Details of the documents are yet to come on record and therefore, at this stage to exclude the name of person without any material on the record is not desirable. More than that, when this Court raised a specific query to the learned advocate, Mr. Joshi appearing for the Commission, under the instructions from the Officers of the Corporation who are present in the court, he has submitted to this Court that in the event no female candidate is found suitable to the post, which is otherwise meant for the female candidates, then no process is likely to be initiated once again for filling of such post and out of those 8 candidates who are called for other 2 seats meant for open category, such vacant seat would be filled. It appears form the advertisement itself that the post which is meant for the female candidates if suitable candidate is not found, then the same shall be filled up by the male candidates. The ratio for filling up 2 posts is 8 candidates, and for 3 posts the same is 10 candidates. As per their own Office instructions, if the suitable candidate is not available for the post meant for women, then the same can be filled up by male candidates.
10. Therefore, without opining finally on this aspect, prima facie it can be said that as only two women candidates are Page 5 of 9 HC-NIC Page 5 of 9 Created On Thu Oct 22 02:31:29 IST 2015 C/SCA/14882/2015 ORDER available for 1 seat and if such seat is not filled up by female candidate, either the total of the candidates required to be called at this stage for the interview should be more or such post in that eventuality may be required to be filed in by calling candidates afresh.
11. Bearing in mind the paucity of time and also considering the fact that the petitioner's name has appeared all along and he was also sent the call letter for oral interview, at present, this Court is of the opinion that his requests required consideration. However, so as to ensure that no prejudice is caused to either side, as the testimonials of the petitioner are already examined by the Commission, he shall be considered for the interview to be held on 15.09.2015 and 16.09.2015 and his result shall be kept in a sealed cover and result of one post shall not be published without further order of this Court.
12. The detailed reply along with the testimonials and substituting document should be filed by GPSE on 28.09.2015."
Reply of the Gujarat Public Service Commission came on record on 4th October 2015 wherein the GPSC contested the petition and also disputed the stand of the petitioner. According to it, against the two posts, eight candidates are required to be called.
However, in the present case, out of total four posts of Joint Director, one post is reserved for Female and one post for SEBC candidate, and therefore, against remaining two posts, eight candidates are requires to be called. The petitioner herein was at Page 6 of 9 HC-NIC Page 6 of 9 Created On Thu Oct 22 02:31:29 IST 2015 C/SCA/14882/2015 ORDER serial no. 8 in the merit list, but because of name of Shri Indravadan V. Patil [Roll No. 101000215] being included in the list of candidates, his name was shifted at serial no. 9 from serial no.8.
Today, additional reply is brought on the record, which is filed by Joint Secretary of the respondent no.1Commission wherein it is stated in no unclear terms that GPSC has verified the facts once again so as to see that no injustice is done to any candidate and after reverification, it is found that one Shri B.K Trivedi [Roll No. 101000136] do not fulfill the requisite experience; as prescribed under the rules, and therefore, a decision was taken by the Commission not to consider his name as suitable candidate, as per the recruitment rules in the respective category list of candidate for personal interview for the post of Joint Director. It is also further submitted that since the name of Shri BK Trivedi has been deleted from the list of candidates called for oral interview, the petitioner is found suitable as per the recruitment rules in the respective category list of candidates for personal interview and his case would be considered on merits.
Heard both the sides.
Learned advocate Mr. Premal Joshi appearing for the Page 7 of 9 HC-NIC Page 7 of 9 Created On Thu Oct 22 02:31:29 IST 2015 C/SCA/14882/2015 ORDER respondentCommission has urged that the grievance of the petitioner would not survive any more as the GPSC itself having realized that inclusion of Shri BK Trivedi was wrongful and once having noticed that, the Commission had rectified its mistake and with that, the present petitioner Shri Prakash Kanaiyalal Trivedi's name would be included. He urged that his interview in any case has already been taken and now the matter shall proceed on merit.
If he has performed well, on merits, his selection would be done.
He also further urged that the Commission be permitted to go ahead with the recruitment process and declared the results.
Learned advocate Mr. KB Pujara appearing for the petitioner has urged that the letter dated 11th September 2015 issued by the GPSC shall need to be quashed either by the order of this Court or at the request of the Commission. Learned advocate Mr. Premal Joshi has agreed that the impugned communication dated 11th September 2015 issued by the Commission does not survive in wake of the stand taken by the Commission.
Bearing in mind additional reply filed by the Commission and the oral submissions made by both the sides, it could be said that the grievance of the petitioner of his non inclusion in the list of candidates called for personal interview for the post of Joint Page 8 of 9 HC-NIC Page 8 of 9 Created On Thu Oct 22 02:31:29 IST 2015 C/SCA/14882/2015 ORDER Director, Gujarat Education ServicesClass I [Administrative Branch] does not survive.
By virtue of interim directions issued by this Court, the petitioner was directed to be interviewed and his result was ordered to be kept in a sealed cover. The Commission at the relevant point of time was directed to proceed finalization of the results by keeping in abeyance the result of one post. Now, with this reply, when the inclusion of the petitioner is already made, in wake of this request made by learned advocate Mr. Premal Joshi, communication dated 11th September 2015 is treated as quashed.
GPSC shall proceed ahead in the process of declaring the result, in accordance with law.
Writ petition stands disposed of. Notice discharged with no order as to costs.
{Ms. Sonia Gokani, J.} Prakash* Page 9 of 9 HC-NIC Page 9 of 9 Created On Thu Oct 22 02:31:29 IST 2015