Gujarat High Court
Atulbhai Chhaganbhai Makwana vs State Of Gujarat on 14 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
Modification of Judgment dtd.
C/MCA/2419/2025 26/09/2025 in R/SCA/16983/2022ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR REVIEW) NO. 2419 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16983 of 2022
[On note for speaking to minutes of order dated 26/09/2025 in
R/SCA/16983/2022 ]
==========================================================
ATULBHAI CHHAGANBHAI MAKWANA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
CHINTAN K GANDHI(8600) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR KM ANTANI, AGP for the Opponent(s) No. 1,3 - State
MS ROOPAL R PATEL(1360) for the Opponent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 14/10/2025
ORAL ORDER
This is an application for review / modification of the order dated 26.09.2025 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No.16983 of 2022 and cognate matters.
Heard learned advocates.
Considering the averments made in this application and considering the submissions canvassed by the learned advocates for the respective parties, this application needs to be allowed and the order dated 26.09.205 passed in Special Civil Application No.16983 of 2022 and cognate matters is th hereby modified to the extent, the words in 5 line of para :
Page 1 of 2 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Tue Oct 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 01:40:05 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION Modification of Judgment dtd.
C/MCA/2419/2025 26/09/2025 in R/SCA/16983/2022ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined 9 i.e. 'these petitions' be read as 'Special Civil Application No.5396 of 2020 and Special Civil Application No.16163 of 2021' and the last line i.e. 'In view of the dismissal of the petitions, Civil Applications stand disposed of' be read as ' Consequently, Special Civil Application No.16983 of 2022 is allowed. The State Government is directed to issue appointment order to the petitioner concerned within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. In view of above, Civil Applications stand disposed of.' Rest of the order remains same. The Registry to issue fresh writ of Special Civil Application No.16983 of 2022 accordingly.
Direct service is permitted.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J) M.H. DAVE Page 2 of 2 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Tue Oct 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 01:40:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION Present Judgment is modified vide C/SCA/16983/2022 Order dtd. 14/10/2025 in JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 R/MCA/2419/2025 undefined IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16983 of 2022 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR DIRECTION) NO. 1 of 2023 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16983 of 2022 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR JOINING PARTY) NO. 1 of 2024 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16983 of 2022 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5396 of 2020 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR JOINING PARTY) NO. 1 of 2024 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5396 of 2020 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16163 of 2021 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR INTERIM RELIEF) NO. 1 of 2022 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16163 of 2021 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR VACATING INTERIM RELIEF) NO. 1 of 2023 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16163 of 2021 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR VACATING INTERIM RELIEF) NO. 2 of 2022 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16163 of 2021 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT ========================================================== Approved for Reporting Yes No ========================================================== ATULBHAI CHHAGANBHAI MAKWANA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
========================================================== Appearance:
CHINTAN K GANDHI(8600) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR KM ANTANI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,3 NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT Date : 26/09/2025 COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT Page 1 of 31 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Oct 01 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 01:40:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION Present Judgment is modified vide C/SCA/16983/2022 Order dtd. 14/10/2025 in JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 R/MCA/2419/2025 undefined
1. As common questions of law and facts are involved in all these petitions, all these petitions are disposed off by this common judgment, as requested by learned advocates for the parties.
2. For the sake of convenience, the facts of Special Civil Application No.16983 of 2022 are taken for consideration:
3.The prayers prayed for in Special Civil Application No.16983 of 2022 are as under:
"8(A) Your Lordship may be pleased to admit and allow this petition.
(B) Your Lordship may be pleased to issue any appropriate writ, order and/or direction in nature of Mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order and/or direction directing the respondent authority to forthwith consider the recommendation issued by GPSC and offer appointment in accordance with law to the post of Superintendent, Central Prison and Superintendent, Porbandar Special Prison in Gujarat Jail Service, Class-I as per Advertisement no.125/2018- 19 issued by GPSC.
(C) Your Lordship may be pleased to direct the appropriate government to issue appointment letter as Page 2 of 31 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Oct 01 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 01:40:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION Present Judgment is modified vide C/SCA/16983/2022 Order dtd. 14/10/2025 in JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 R/MCA/2419/2025 undefined recommended by GPSC by its letter dated 12.11.2021. (D) Your Lordship may be pleased to direct the respondent to consider the seniority of the petitioner to the post in question with effect of 12.11.2021 i.e. the date of recommendation forwarded by the GPSC. And also, be pleased to grant arrears of wages to the petitioner from 12.11.2021 with 12% interest. (E) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the petition, be pleased to direct the respondent authority to forthwith consider the recommendation issued by GPSC and offer appointment in accordance with law in the post in question.
(F) xxxx"
4. The facts stated in Special Civil Application No.16983 of 2022, are as under:
5. On 11.3.2016, the Home Department, Gujarat has issued notification and had framed rules to provide for regulating recruitment to the post of Superintendent, Central Prison and Superintendent, Porbandar, Special Prison in Gujarat Jail Service, Class-I and accordingly Rules and Orders made by the Government of Gujarat under the Central Acts and published the same by the Gujarat Government Gazette on 27.9.2018; that on 2.1.2019, Gujarat Public Service Commission, has issued on advertisement for Page 3 of 31 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Oct 01 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 01:40:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION Present Judgment is modified vide C/SCA/16983/2022 Order dtd. 14/10/2025 in JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 R/MCA/2419/2025 undefined five posts of Superintendent, Central Prison and Superintendent, Porbandar, Special Prison in Gujarat Jail Service, Class-I; that the petitioner appeared in written exams; the list of eligible candidates was published on 17.9.2019, the medical examination was conducted on 28.1.2020; the list of ineligible candidates was published on 13.3.2021; on 6.5.2021, the respondent no.2 has published merit list of 9 candidates for eligible of interview; the petitioner was called for interview and he appeared on 5.7.2021; as no progress was in the matter, the petitioner filed Special Civil Application No.12448 of 2021 praying to declare the results as well as seeking appointment order, wherein by order dated 14.10.2021, this Court has, while disposing the said petition observed that the main prayer with regard to the declaring result was taken care. It is stated that the advertisement is published for five posts, for which total 17 candidates have been declared eligible for application scrutiny, and out of them, 10 candidates were declared disqualified by respondent authority as they do not have requisite qualification, however, out of them, 3 candidates were permitted to appear in interview pursuant to the order of this Court; on 12.11.2021, the respondent no.2 has already recommended name of the petitioner for the post in question; that the three candidates have preferred three different petitions being Special Civil Application No.2714 of Page 4 of 31 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Oct 01 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 01:40:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION Present Judgment is modified vide C/SCA/16983/2022 Order dtd. 14/10/2025 in JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 R/MCA/2419/2025 undefined 2020, 5397 of 2020 and 16163 of 2021. The inaction of the respondent authorities in not offering the appointment order to the petitioner is challenged in this petition.
6. At the time of issuance of notice in all these petitions, the interim relief is granted which is continued from time to time and is in operation till today.
7. Heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the material placed on record.
8. At the outset, learned advocates for the parties have fairly submitted that Special Civil Application No.2714 of 2020 referred to hereinabove wherein similar issue is involved is finally decided by this Court on 18.8.2025 and Letters Patent Appeal against the same is filed before the Division Bench which is pending and no notice or interim relief is granted till date and restricted their submissions.
8. For ready reference, the order dated 18.8.2025 passed in Special Civil Application No.2714 of 2020 reads as under:
"1. The present petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner, with the Page 5 of 31 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Oct 01 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 01:40:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION Present Judgment is modified vide C/SCA/16983/2022 Order dtd. 14/10/2025 in JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 R/MCA/2419/2025 undefined following main prayers.
"8A. declare and hold that the petitioners are eligible for appointment to the post of Superintendent, Central Prison and Superintendent, Porbandar Special Prison in the Gujarat Jail Service, Class-I and consequently direct the respondent authorities, more particularly the responder No.2 to consider the case of the petitioners for appointment to the said post along with other eligible and meritorious candidates; end B. Pending admission and final disposal of this petition, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the recruitment process for appointment to the post of Superintendent, Central Prison and Superintendent, Porbandar Special Prison in the Gujarat Jail Service, Class-I, pursuant to advertisement No.1205/18-19, Annexure A to this petition; and C. Pending admission and final disposal of this petition, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the Gujarat Public Service Page 6 of 31 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Oct 01 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 01:40:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION Present Judgment is modified vide C/SCA/16983/2022 Order dtd. 14/10/2025 in JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 R/MCA/2419/2025 undefined Commission to permit the petitioners to participate in the oral interview for appointment to the post of Superintendent Central Prison and Superintendent Porbandar Special Prison in the Gujarat Jail Service Class-I in connection with the advertisement No.1205/18-19; and D. Pending admission and final disposal of this petition, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the Gujarat Public Service Commission to send the petitioners for verification of physical standards at Civil Hospital, Gandhinagar or before any other competent Medical Officer, in connection with the advertisement No.1205/18-19."
2. It is noted that while issuing notice, the Coordinate Bench of this Court has vide order dated 30.01.2020 granted ad-interim relief in terms of Para-8C and thereby directed the Gujarat Public Service Commission to permit the petitioners to participate in the oral interview for appointment to the post in question, however, the Court has clarified that it is without creating any equity in favour of the petitioners.
3. It is also noted that initially, there are two Page 7 of 31 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Oct 01 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 01:40:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION Present Judgment is modified vide C/SCA/16983/2022 Order dtd. 14/10/2025 in JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 R/MCA/2419/2025 undefined petitioners in this petition. Since petitioner No.2 has obtained less marks than the cut-off marks for merit category, the present petition does not survive qua petitioner No.2 and ordered accordingly. Therefore, this petition is heard by this Court qua petitioner No.1 only, who is now sole petitioner in this petition.
4. It is further noted that, vide order dated 14.10.2021, one post is kept reserved.
5. Heard learned advocates. Rule returnable forthwith. With consent of the learned advocates, this petition is heard finally by this Court.
6.1 Learned advocate Mr. Vaibhav Vyas for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioner is fulfilling all the eligibility criteria prescribed for appointment to the post in question including the criteria of age, educational qualification and experience; and that in spite of that, the petitioner is not permitted to appear for verification of physical standards; and that the action of the respondent authorities is contrary to the provisions contained in the recruitment rules as well as the advertisement; and that due to the impugned action on the part of the respondent authorities, petitioner is losing his valuable right of being considered for public employment to the post in question, resulting into violation of his fundamental rights; and that Page 8 of 31 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Oct 01 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 01:40:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION Present Judgment is modified vide C/SCA/16983/2022 Order dtd. 14/10/2025 in JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 R/MCA/2419/2025 undefined no reason was assigned as to why the petitioner was treated to be ineligible by the Gujarat Public Service Commission ('the GPSC' for short). He has submitted that this petition may be allowed.
6.2 In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of R.S. Bhatt versus Gujarat Public Service Commission in Special Civil Application No.7580 of 2008 dated 29.01.2016.
7. Per contra, learned advocate Ms.Roopal Patel for respondent No.2 - the GPSC has vehemently opposed this petition. She has drawn the attention of this Court towards the affidavit in reply filed by respondent No.2 and has submitted that as per the recruitment rules, the candidates are required to possess a degree with first class from any University established by Central or State Act, coupled with experience of seven years of Superintendent of District Jail, Gujarat Jail Services, Class-II in Jail Department or experience of seven years in administrative service in Government or Government Undertaking or Board or Corporation etc.; and that the petitioner is having educational qualification of B.A. Second Class, M.A. Second Class with B.Ed., two years course (First Class); and that the respondent No.2 vide communication dated 29.02.2020 to the Government sought an opinion in this regard and in turn, respondent No.1 i.e. Home Department of Government Page 9 of 31 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Oct 01 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 01:40:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION Present Judgment is modified vide C/SCA/16983/2022 Order dtd. 14/10/2025 in JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 R/MCA/2419/2025 undefined of Gujarat sought opinion of the Education Department with regard to the validity of a degree of B.Ed. as possessed by the petitioner; and that the Education Department on the basis of communication of Secretary of UGC to all Vice Chancellors of Universities, opined that any course of three years duration can be equated with Graduation and any course less than three years would not qualify as Graduation, but can be termed as Professional Course; and that thus, it is opined by respondent No.1 that the degree of B.Ed., with First Class is not considered as First Class either at Graduation or at Post Graduation level; and that the petitioner is not fulfilling the requirement of having First Class either at Graduation or at Post Graduation level; and that the petitioners were called for interview and also for physical test in view of the order passed by this Court. It is submitted that the present petition may be dismissed.
8. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General Mr. Mitesh Amin with learned AGP Mr. K.M. Antani has also vehemently opposed this petition. He has also drawn the attention of this Court towards the affidavit in reply filed by respondent No.1 and has submitted that the Rules 2016 through Rule 3(b)(i) stipulates educational qualifications to be possessed by an aspirant of the post of Superintendent Central Prison. It inter alia prescribes possession of a degree with First Class from any of the Universities established by or under a Central or State Act or an equivalent Page 10 of 31 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Oct 01 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 01:40:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION Present Judgment is modified vide C/SCA/16983/2022 Order dtd. 14/10/2025 in JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 R/MCA/2419/2025 undefined qualification either availed from a Deemed University or one recognized as such by the Government; and that petitioner claims to possess Bachelor of Education with First Division, Bachelor of Arts passed with Second Class and Master of Arts passed with Second Class; and that it is the qualifications of the petitioner which has been held as insufficient by responder No.2, particularly, since the petitioner does not possess a first division/class in either graduate or postgraduate qualifications except the professional qualification of B.Ed.; and that with respect to the purport of the term 'Degree of First Class' as mentioned in the advertisement in question, the respondent No.2 had consulted the Government in the Home Department and on the said subject, the Home Department, in turn, had consulted the Education Department in the Government and the consultations fruitfully culminated into opinion dated 24.11.2020, where under the Home Department in the Government through the Deputy Secretary, on 24.11.2020, opined that Bachelor in Education would be a professional degree, whereas what is required under the Rules 2016 is an academic qualification; and that in accordance with the said opinion and with such interpretation of the requirements under the Rules 2016, if the candidatures of the petitioner is considered, it would arise that the petitioner does not possess first class in their respective academic qualification, either at graduation or at post graduation level, but instead hold first class in a professional qualification i.e. Page 11 of 31 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Oct 01 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 01:40:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION Present Judgment is modified vide C/SCA/16983/2022 Order dtd. 14/10/2025 in JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 R/MCA/2419/2025 undefined B.Ed., which the same has acquired during the course of their educational pursuits; and that since what is required under Rules, 2016 is the first class in academic qualifications and the said aspect has been sufficiently clarified through the opinion dated 24.11.2020; and that since the Home Department in the Government being the employer, its opinion as to the requirements for the post of Jail Superintendent particularly as regards qualification shal bind the respondent No.2 in assessing the candidature for recommending appointment on the post of possession Jail Superintendent falling under the aegis of the Home Department in the Government, it can be said that the petitioner ousters and/or ineligible for appointment to the post of Jail Superintendent is rightly and justifiably; and that the Hon'ble Apex Court has, time and again, held that the employer is the best suited to assess and determine the requirements which would in turn serve as a threshold for eligibility for appointment to the post it seeks to offer. He has submitted that this petition may be dismissed.
8.2 In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Zahoor Ahmad Rather versus Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad reported in (2019) 2 SCC 404.
9.1 Learned advocate Mr. Jigar Dave for respondent No.3 i.e. private respondent - successful candidate, has also vehemently opposed this petition. He has also filed a civil Page 12 of 31 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Oct 01 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 01:40:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION Present Judgment is modified vide C/SCA/16983/2022 Order dtd. 14/10/2025 in JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 R/MCA/2419/2025 undefined application for vacating interim relief being Civil Application No.1 of 2023. He has also drawn the attention of this Court towards the affidavit in reply and has submitted that the petitioner is not fulfilling the eligibility criteria with regard to the minimum education qualification as prescribed for the appointment to the post in question; and that the petitioner is possessing Bachelor of Arts degree with second class and and in view of settled law, the degree of Bachelor cannot be treated as Bachelor's degree; and that the degree of B.Ed., is not equivalent to the Graduate Degree and it can be termed as professional certificate course, which is necessary for appointment for any teaching post; and that the Expert Committee meeting was held on 05.10.2020 to decide validity of the B.Ed. Course for the appointment of said post and the Committee, on the basis of the notification of the National Council for Teachers' Education dated 28.11.2014 and UGC (Minimum Standard of instruction for the grant of the first degree through formal education) Regulation, 2003, held that Bachelors Degree Course should be of three years, whereas, B.Ed. Course is of one/two years, which can be considered as professional certificate course; and that B.Ed. degree cannot be considered as Bachelor's Degree for appointment of other than teaching posts; and that B.Ed. cannot be termed as Bachelor's degree; and that the present petition is required to be dismissed on the grounds of lack of eligibility with regard to possessing minimum education qualification on the part of the petitioner; and that the Page 13 of 31 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Oct 01 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 01:40:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION Present Judgment is modified vide C/SCA/16983/2022 Order dtd. 14/10/2025 in JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 R/MCA/2419/2025 undefined language of advertisement, recruitment rules and notification is clear and unambiguous; and that the petitioner is only interested to prolong the litigation; and that it is a settled law that in the matter of appointment, the scope of judicial review is very limited. He has submitted that this petition may be dismissed.
9.2 In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Brijeshkumar Dashrathlal Patel versus Chairman and others in Special Civil Application No.16694 of 2017 and cognate matters dated 26.08.2022.
10.1 I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties. I have perused the documents available on record. The educational qualification described in the impugned advertisement for the post in question is, relevant to issue in question, as under.
"Educational Qualification :- (a) (i) possess a degree with first class of any of the Universities established or incorporated by or under the Central or a State Act in India or any other Educational Institution recognised as such or declared to be deemed as a University under section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 or possess an equivalent qualification recognised Page 14 of 31 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Oct 01 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 01:40:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION Present Judgment is modified vide C/SCA/16983/2022 Order dtd. 14/10/2025 in JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 R/MCA/2419/2025 undefined by the Government; and
(ii) have about "seven years" experience of Superintendent of District Jail, Gujarat Jail Service, Class II in the Jail Department or have about seven years administrative experience in Government or Government undertaking Board or Corporation or Local Bodies or Limited Company established under the Companies Act, 2013 which can be considered equivalent to the post not below the rant of Superintendent of District Jail, in the Gujarat Jail Service, Class-II in the Jail Department.
xxx "
10.2 The petitioner possesses educational qualification of Bachelor of Arts with second class, Master of Arts with second class and Bachelor of Education with first division.
10.3 The petitioner fulfills the educational qualification as required in the advertisement for the post in question, against which, all the respondents held specifically taken a contention that the petitioner does not possess first class in either graduate or in postgraduate qualification, but he possesses the first class in professional qualification i.e. B.Ed.
10.4 In view of above controversy, they only question Page 15 of 31 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Oct 01 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 01:40:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION Present Judgment is modified vide C/SCA/16983/2022 Order dtd. 14/10/2025 in JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 R/MCA/2419/2025 undefined cropped up for determination of this Court would be that, weather (sic) whether the term 'degree of first class', as stipulated in the advertisement, can be equated with the qualification of B.Ed. or not.
10.5 Indisputably, the petitioner has the educational qualification of Bachelor of Arts with second class, Master of Arts with second class and Bachelor of Education i.e. B.Ed. with first class. With regard to the claim of the petitioner that Bachelor of Education with first class fulfills the criteria of the advertisement is concerned, this Court finds that with respect to the purport of the term 'degree of first class', responder No.2 authority had consulted the Home Department, Government of Gujarat and the Home Department, in turn, had consulted the Education Department of the Government of Gujarat and the Education Department had opined that vide its communication dated 24.11.2020 that Bachelor's in Education i.e. B.Ed., would be a professional degree, whereas what is required under the Rules, 2016 is an academic qualification, therefore, as per the said opinion, the educational qualification of the petitioner of Bachelor of Arts and Master of Arts are the academic qualification in which the petitioner possesses second class indisputably. As per the claim of the petitioner, he possesses the degree with first class i.e. B.Ed. is not an academic qualification as per the Rules 2016, but it is a professional degree which does not satisfy the criteria as required in the advertisement for the post in question. The Page 16 of 31 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Oct 01 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 01:40:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION Present Judgment is modified vide C/SCA/16983/2022 Order dtd. 14/10/2025 in JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 R/MCA/2419/2025 undefined Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Brijeshkumar Dashrathlal Patel (supra) has observed that the degree of B.Ed., cannot be considered as Bachelor Degree of Graduation as such.
10.6 Further, vide Notification dated 06.08.2019, the Home Department amended the Rule 3(b)(i) of the Rules, 2016 and substituted the words 'possess a degree' with the words 'possess a bachelor's degree'. Therefore, in view of the said amendment in the Rules, 2016 by the said Notification, the petitioner does not possess a bachelor's degree with first class.
10.7 At this stage, it would be fruitful to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sajid Khan versus L. Rahmathullah reported in MANU/SC/0247/2025, more particularly Paras : 18 to 21 thereof, which read as under.
"18. In circumstances where the appointing authority has not objected to the qualifications of the appellants and there is no apparent or glaring difference in the qualifications, we see no reason for courts to interfere and set-aside the appointments made after due consideration. It is the appointing authority which has to take the decision on whether the candidate possesses Page 17 of 31 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Oct 01 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 01:40:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION Present Judgment is modified vide C/SCA/16983/2022 Order dtd. 14/10/2025 in JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 R/MCA/2419/2025 undefined what is required by the post in cases of disputed equivalence. This Court has stated the same in categorical terms in its decision Anand Yadav v. State of U.P., (2021) 12 SCC 390. :
32. We may also notice another important aspect i.e. the employer ultimately being the best judge of who should be appointed. The choice was of Respondent 2 who sought the assistance of an expert committee in view of the representation of some of the appellants. The eminence of the expert committee is apparent from its composition. That committee, after examination, opined in favour of the stand taken by the appellants, and Respondent 2 as employer decided to concur with the same and accepted the committee's opinion. It is really not for the appellants Page 18 of 31 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Oct 01 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 01:40:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION Present Judgment is modified vide C/SCA/16983/2022 Order dtd. 14/10/2025 in JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 R/MCA/2419/2025 undefined or the contesting respondent to contend how and in what manner a degree should be obtained, which would make them eligible for appointment by Respondent 2. (emphasis supplied)
19. The recruiting authority has scrutinised the qualifications before deciding that they satisfy what is enumerated in the advertisement. It is not the case of the respondents that the authority in the present case has not applied its mind in scrutinising the appellants diplomas. In Mukul Kumar Tyagi v. State of U.P., (2020) 4 SCC 86. this Court had an occasion to consider the approach to be adopted by the recruiting agency/employer while considering the issue of equivalence of qualifications and directed as under:
59. The equivalence of qualification as claimed by a candidate is matter of scrutiny by the recruiting agency/employer. It is the recruiting agency which has to Page 19 of 31 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Oct 01 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 01:40:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION Present Judgment is modified vide C/SCA/16983/2022 Order dtd. 14/10/2025 in JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 R/MCA/2419/2025 undefined be satisfied as to whether the claim of equivalence of qualification by a candidate is sustainable or not. The purpose and object of qualification is fixed by employer to suit or fulfil the objective of recruiting the best candidates for the job. It is the recruiting agency who is under obligation to scrutinise the qualifications of a candidate as to whether a candidate is eligible and entitled to participate in the selection. More so when the advertisement clearly contemplates that certificate concerning the qualification shall be scrutinised, it was the duty and obligation of the recruiting agency to scrutinise the qualification to find out the eligibility of the candidates. The self-certification or self-declaration by a candidate that his computer qualification is equivalent to CCC has neither been envisaged in the advertisement nor can be said to be fulfilling the eligibility Page 20 of 31 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Oct 01 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 01:40:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION Present Judgment is modified vide C/SCA/16983/2022 Order dtd. 14/10/2025 in JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 R/MCA/2419/2025 undefined condition. (emphasis supplied)
20. Similarly, in Maharashtra Public Service Commission v. Sandeep Shriram Warade, (2019) 6 SCC 362. it was held that :
9. The essential qualifications for appointment to a post are for the employer to decide. The employer may prescribe additional or desirable qualifications, including any grant of preference. It is the employer who is best suited to decide the requirements a candidate must possess according to the needs of the employer and the nature of work. The court cannot lay down the conditions of eligibility, much less can it delve into the issue with regard to desirable qualifications being on a par with the essential eligibility by an interpretive re-writing of the advertisement. Questions of equivalence will also fall outside the domain of judicial review. If the language of the advertisement Page 21 of 31 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Oct 01 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 01:40:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION Present Judgment is modified vide C/SCA/16983/2022 Order dtd. 14/10/2025 in JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 R/MCA/2419/2025 undefined and the rules are clear, the court cannot sit in judgment over the same. If there is an ambiguity in the advertisement or it is contrary to any rules or law the matter has to go back to the appointing authority after appropriate orders, to proceed in accordance with law.
In no case can the court, in the garb of judicial review, sit in the chair of the appointing authority to decide what is best for the employer and interpret the conditions of the advertisement contrary to the plain language of the same.
21. Though there a number of decisions on this very principle, Mohd Shujat Ali v. Union of India, (1975) 3 SCC 76; Dr. B.L. Asawa v. State of Rajasthan, 1982 (2) SCC 55; Zahoor Ahmad Rather v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad, (2019) 2 SCC 404 . we will conclude with a recent decision of this Court in Union of India v Uzair Imran, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1308 . emphasizing the restraint a court must exercise while Page 22 of 31 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Oct 01 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 01:40:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION Present Judgment is modified vide C/SCA/16983/2022 Order dtd. 14/10/2025 in JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 R/MCA/2419/2025 undefined determining equivalence between qualifications. The relevant portion is as under :
14. Normally, it is not the function of the court to determine equivalence of two qualifications and/or to scrutinise a particular certificate and say, on the basis of its appreciation thereof, that the holder thereof satisfies the eligibility criteria and, thus, is qualified for appointment. It is entirely the prerogative of the employer, after applications are received from interested candidates or names of registered candidates are sponsored by the Employment Exchanges for public employment, to decide whether any such candidate intending to participate in the selection process is eligible in terms of the statutorily prescribed rules for appointment and also as to whether he ought to be allowed to enter the zone of consideration, i.e., to participate in Page 23 of 31 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Oct 01 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 01:40:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION Present Judgment is modified vide C/SCA/16983/2022 Order dtd. 14/10/2025 in JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 R/MCA/2419/2025 undefined the selection process. It is only when evidence of a sterling quality is produced before the court which, without much argument or deep scrutiny, tilts the balance in favour of one party that the court could decide either way based on acceptance of such evidence.
(emphasis supplied)"
10.8 It would also be fruitful to refer to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Hiteshbhai Bhikhabhai Vyas versus State of Gujarat reported in 2012 SCC OnLine Guj. 4883, more particularly, para : 10 thereof, which reads as under.
"10. In catena of decisions, the Supreme Court as well as this Court has held that employer has absolute discretion to prescribe the required educational qualification and experience to ensure selection of suitable candidates. Court is having limited scope of judicial review when Government policy or administrative action is under challenge, as court is not the appellate authority and the Constitution does not permit the court to interfere in matters of policy unless and Page 24 of 31 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Oct 01 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 01:40:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION Present Judgment is modified vide C/SCA/16983/2022 Order dtd. 14/10/2025 in JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 R/MCA/2419/2025 undefined until one or the other legal or fundamental right of the citizen is violated. It is always open to the recruiting agency to prescribe eligibility criteria."
10.9 It would also be fruitful to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Zahoor Ahmad Rather (supra), more particularly Para : 26 thereof, which reads as under.
" 26. We are in respectful agreement with the interpretation which has been placed on the judgment in Jyoti KK in the subsequent decision in Anita (supra). The decision in Jyoti KK turned on the provisions of Rule 10(a)(ii). Absent such a rule, it would not be permissible to draw an inference that a higher qualification necessarily pre-supposes the acquisition of another, albeit lower, qualification. The prescription of qualifications for a post is a matter of recruitment policy. The state as the employer is entitled to prescribe the qualifications as a condition of eligibility. It is no part of the role or function of judicial review to expand upon the ambit of the prescribed qualifications. Similarly, equivalence of a qualification is not a Page 25 of 31 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Oct 01 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 01:40:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION Present Judgment is modified vide C/SCA/16983/2022 Order dtd. 14/10/2025 in JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 R/MCA/2419/2025 undefined matter which can be determined in exercise of the power of judicial review. Whether a particular qualification should or should not be regarded as equivalent is a matter for the state, as the recruiting authority, to determine. The decision in Jyoti KK turned on a specific statutory rule under which the holding of a higher qualification could presuppose the acquisition of a lower qualification. The absence of such a rule in the present case makes a crucial difference to the ultimate outcome. In this view of the matter, the Division Bench of the High Court was justified in reversing the judgment of the learned Single Judge and in coming to the conclusion that the appellants did not meet the prescribed qualifications. We find no error in the decision of the Division Bench."
10.10 It would also be fruitful to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Unnikrishnan CV versus Union of India reported in (2023) 18 SCC 546, more particularly para : 7 thereof, which reads as under.
"7. In Zahoor Ahmad Rather & Ors. v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad & Ors, (2019) 2 SCC Page 26 of 31 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Oct 01 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 01:40:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION Present Judgment is modified vide C/SCA/16983/2022 Order dtd. 14/10/2025 in JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 R/MCA/2419/2025 undefined 404 it was held that the State, as an employer, is entitled to prescribe qualifications as a condition of eligibility, after taking into consideration the nature of the job, the aptitude required for efficient discharge of duties, functionality of various qualifications, course content leading up to the acquisition of various qualifications, etc. Judicial review can neither expand the ambit of the prescribed qualifications nor decide the equivalence of the prescribed qualifications with any other given qualification. Equivalence of qualification is a matter for the State, as recruiting authority, to determine.
(Emphasis supplied)"
10.11 It would also be fruitful to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shifana P.S. versus The State of Kerala reported in 2024 INSC 580, more particularly para : 14 thereof, which reads as under.
"14. This Court in the case of Zahoor Ahmad Rather and Others v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad and Others, (2019) 2 SCC 404 held that judicial review can neither Page 27 of 31 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Oct 01 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 01:40:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION Present Judgment is modified vide C/SCA/16983/2022 Order dtd. 14/10/2025 in JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 R/MCA/2419/2025 undefined expand the ambit of the prescribed qualifications nor decide the equivalence of the prescribed qualifications with any other given qualification. Therefore, the equivalence of a qualification is not a matter that can be determined in the exercise of the power of judicial review. Whether a particular qualification should or should not be regarded as equivalent is a matter for the State, as the recruiting authority, to determine. (emphasis supplied) "
10.12. It would also be fruitful to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of O.P. Lather versus Satish Kumar Kakkar reported in (2001) 3 SCC 110, more particularly Para : 14 thereof, which reads as under.
"14. But in the present case, by issuing the clarification no vested rights of any person were taken away or impaired, much less that of the first respondent. By this clarification, it was made clear that Diploma issued by the State Technical Education Department would be equivalent to a Diploma issued from a recognised university. Even without this explanation, both Page 28 of 31 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Oct 01 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 01:40:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION Present Judgment is modified vide C/SCA/16983/2022 Order dtd. 14/10/2025 in JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 R/MCA/2419/2025 undefined Diploma-holders and Degree-holders having eight years' service as Asstt. Engineer are entitled to be promoted to the cadre of Executive Engineer. This clarification has been issued by the State Govt. after taking into consideration all relevant circumstances, including the fact that no university in Haryana grants Diploma in Electrical Engineering. When expert qualification is fixed by competent authority, ordinarily Court shall not interfere with such matters. In University of Mysore V/s. C. D. Govinda Rao, (1964) 4 SCR 575 , it was observed that normally it is wise and safe for the Courts to leave the decision of academic matters to experts who are more familiar with the problems they face than the Courts generally can be. "
11. There cannot be any dispute with regard to the law enunciated in the decision of this Court relied upon by the learned advocate for the petitioner, however, it cannot be helpful to the petitioner any further in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case. The present case does not fall within the purview of the said decision with such facts.
12. In view of above facts and circumstances of the present case as well as what is laid down by this Court as Page 29 of 31 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Oct 01 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 01:40:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION Present Judgment is modified vide C/SCA/16983/2022 Order dtd. 14/10/2025 in JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 R/MCA/2419/2025 undefined well as by the Hon'ble Apex Court noted above, this Court finds that the petitioner does not possess the requisite educational qualification for the post in question and therefore, the respondent authorities has rightly held ineligible the petitioner for the post in question and that looking to the limitations as observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court time again regarding the limited scope of judicial review in such cases, this Court does not warrant any interference in the decision of the respondent authorities impugned. The present petition devoid of merit. Therefore, the present petition needs to be dismissed.
13. For the reasons recorded above, the present petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Rule is discharged. Interim relief stands vacated.
14. In view of above, civil application for vacating interim relief would not survive and is disposed of accordingly.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J) After the judgment is pronounced, learnd advocate Ms.Prachi Upadhyay for learned advocate Mr. Vaibhav Vyas for the petitioner prays for extension of interim relief for a period of two weeks, which is opposed by learned advocate Ms.Roopal Patel for the GPSC, Mr.Jigar Dave for private respondent and learned AAG Mr.Amin for Page 30 of 31 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Oct 01 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 01:40:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION Present Judgment is modified vide C/SCA/16983/2022 Order dtd. 14/10/2025 in JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 R/MCA/2419/2025 undefined the State.
Considering the fact that the present petition is pending since the year 2020 and the issue involved in the present petition will have larger effect and bearing on the outcome of the other connected matters which are pending, and considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the request for extension of interim relief, which is operating since many years, is not required to be extended any further. Hence, request is rejected."
9. In view of the above decision, as the facts of these petitions and the prayers are similar to that as prayed for in Special Civil Application No.2714 of 2020, the decision of Special Civil Application would have a direct bearing on the fate of these petitions, these petitions also fail and are dismissed. Notice/Rule, if any, stands dismissed. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated. In view of the dismissal of the petitions, Civil Applications stand disposed of.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J) SRILATHA Page 31 of 31 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Oct 01 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 01:40:05 IST 2025