Gujarat High Court
Santoshi vs Gujarat on 27 September, 2011
Author: Anant S. Dave
Bench: Anant S. Dave
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/12258/2011
8/ 8 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 12258 of
2011
=========================================================
SANTOSHI
A SONI - Petitioner(s)
Versus
GUJARAT
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
AS SUPEHIA for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR DG SHUKLA for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
Date
: 27/09/2011
ORAL
ORDER
1. The petitioner serving as Principal, I.T.I. (Industrial Training Institute), Sanand, applied for the post of Principal / Senior Surveyor / Technical Officer / Training-cum-Placement Officer / Trade Testing Officer, pursuant to the advertisement dated 28.01.2009 and also appeared in the written-test held by the Commission on 27.08.2009. Initially, the petitioner was declared successful in the list of 410 candidates published by Gujarat Public Service Commission (for short 'G.P.S.C.') on 15.06.2010 along with requisite details, the petitioner had furnished relevant certificates of experience, as requied in the advertisement. But, later on, the result was published by GPSC on 05.08.2011, in which the name of the petitioner was excluded and upon inquiry and as per the note, it was stated that the petitioner and similarly situated candidates did not possess the requisite experience as per advertisement. Thus, the petitioner was held ineligible for appearing in the oral interviews to be commenced from 03.09.2011. On further inquiry and reasons stated by the GPSC, that the petitioner did not possess requisite experience was confirmed.
The above procedure of GPSC is the subject-matter of challenge in this writ-petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2. Shri. Supehia, learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that initially name of the petitioner was found in the list of successful candidates, who had cleared written examination and in the above result dated 15.06.2010 total 410 candidates were held to be eligible for further stage of selection. Further, on 05.08.2011, 58 candidates were included who were not in the list dated 15.06.2010, but, no reasons or grounds were stated by GPSC for such exercise and due to such addition of 58 numbers of candidates, resultant effect is on the merit of the petitioner, who is held to be ineligible for oral interviews. It is further submitted that the procedure adopted by GPSC in absence of any statutory rules is not only arbitrary, but, unreasonable which empowers GPSC to take decision on the basis of circumstances and not on any rationale.
3. So far as lack of experience or inadequacy of experience of the petitioner as required in the advertisement, it is submitted that having obtained degree in B.E.(Chemical), the petitioner worked as a Supervisor in Haresh Dye Chem from Augsut 1998 till January, 2003 and the relevant certificate is also annexed with the petition and of serving in the said factory, the petitioner acqired two years of experience, as per the advertisement. It is further submitted that even the petitioner was appointed as Principal in I.T.I., Saraspur, Ahmedabad, on contract basis vide order dated 12.02.2009, where he has worked till 12.01.2010, which also counts for experience. The petitioner has also produced another certificate of experience of working as a Production Officer from 10.02.2004 to 12.01.2009 with Gujarat Ambuja Exports Limited and therefore that experience would also count as required in the advertisement.
In view of the above, it is submitted that the decision of the respondent-GPSC to exclude the name of the petitioner from the list of successful candidates is illegal andrespondent be directed to call the petitioner for interview.
4. Shri. Deepak Shukla, learned Counsel for the respondent-GPSC would contend that as per the requirement of the advertisement issued by the GPSC, which is in consonance with the recruitment rules framed in the year 1984 for the above post, namely Principal / Senior Surveyor / Technical Officer / Training-cum-Placement Officer / Trade Testing Officer in Gujarat Skill Traning Service(Class-II), as per the requisition and keeping in mind the reservation in various categories. The GPSC had conducted an elimination test / preliminary test on 27.08.2009, which was cleared by the petitioner, but, at the same time, the petitioner lacked requisite qualification pertaining to experience, and therefore, was not called for interview. As per the requirement of the rules and advertisement, the candidates ought to have possessed relevant experience in a large training workship or factory engaged in production or recognized technical institute after obtaining requisite academic qualification. Though, the petitioner acquired degree in Bachelor of Engineering(Chemical) branch, but, if certificate of experience is noticed, it would reveal that the petitioner was working as a supervisor in quality control department of Haresh Dye Chem which happened to be dealers in dyes and chemicals and no production acitivity was carried out. While certificate of visiting lecturer in Government Engineering College, Gandhinagar, from 17.01.2000 to 17.07.2000 and later on in High-tech Engineering College, Ahmedabad, from 01.03.2000 to 30.06.2000 as a visiting lecturer, the petitioner had not completed two years in large training workshop or recognized technical institute. Learned counsel for the respondent would further submit that no detailed certificate about the work with Gujarat Ambuja Exports Limited, for requisite experience was produced by the petitioner. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel for the respondent the petition deserves to be rejected. Thus, it is submitted that satisfaction of the GPSC with regard to lack of requisite experience on the part of the petitioner is just and proper and the GPSC having verified relevant material on record in the form of application and certificates annexed therewith, this Court would not interfere with the process of selection undertaken by an autonomous body like GPSC, in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constituion of India.
5. Upon perusal of the record and considering the rival submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties respectively and specifically the advertisement dated 28.01.2009 published in Gujarat Rojgar Samachar reveal that apart from requirement of academic qulification in various branches of engineering, a candidate was supposed to possess experience of two years in a big training workshop or a factory producing and manufacturing various products or experience in recognized techinical educational institution. Thus, about the petitioner having basic degree in Engineering(Chemical) had no clear experience as required in the advertisement in a factory producing various products or in a big traning institute / workshop or from a recognized technical educational institution. The experience of teaching cited as a visiting lecturer by the petitioner was not for a period of two years and further such experience is not in a recognized technical institution. That, further the experience in a capacity of a supervisor in quality control from 29th August, 1998 to 1st January, 2003 was in a firm which was dealers in dyes and chemicals and admittedly t he experience was not in production acitivity. So far as certificate issued by authorized signatory of Gujarat Ambuja Exports Limited about the work of the petitioner as a Production Manager from 10.02.2003 to 12.01.2009 do not reveal that the above Gujarat Ambuja Exports Limited was a manufacturing unit and at the same time, the working of the petitioner in the above unit coincides with his working with other institutions, create doubt about such certificate. This Court had specifically asked the petitioner to produce the details about the working of the petitioner as a production officer nearly for about six years, but, no details have been submitted.
In the above circumstances, decision of the GPSC to exclude the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner lacked basic experience required for the post and advertisement in question cannot be said to be in any manner unreasonable, arbitrary or discriminatory and in violation of Article 14 or 16 of the Constituion of India. Further, the decision of the GPSC to include 58 candidates in the list of successful candidates was due to lack of availability of eligible candidates who have fulfilled such passing standards and therefore the decision of the GPSC to include 58 candidates who were initially not in the list of successful candidates is not in any manner illegal.
That list of 410 candidates published on 15.06.2010 by GPSC was based on preliminary scrutiny of applications b ased on elegibility criteria subject to clear provisions of clause / note-2 of result dated 15.06.2010 and therefore on detail verification of requisite qualifications if the petitioner is found ineligible on the ground of lack of experience, it cannot be said to be illegal.
6. In the matter of selection procedure undertaken by the autonomous body like GPSC and such recruitment is by way of public advertisement prescribing necessary academic and experience, qualifications and in consonance with recruitment rules for the purpose, unless such procedure is found contrary to relevant statutory rules, the Court exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constituion of India will not interfere with such lawful action.
7. Upon overall consideration, the Court is satisfied that the procedure undertaken by the GPSC and in abasence of any arbitrariness or unreasonableness in excluding the name of the petitioner from the list of successful candidates, considering him ineligible for interview cannot be said to be contrary to law. The petition fails and is accordingly DISMISSED. Notice is discharged. No costs.
(ANANT S. DAVE,J.) Umesh/ Top