Gujarat High Court
Hiteshkumar Babubhai Prajapati vs State Of Gujarat & on 19 November, 2014
Author: Rajesh H.Shukla
Bench: Rajesh H.Shukla
C/SCA/13501/2014 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13501 of 2014
=======================================================
HITESHKUMAR BABUBHAI PRAJAPATI....Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1....Respondent(s)
=======================================================
Appearance:
MR MP PRAJAPATI for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR RB RAVAL AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2
=======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA
Date : 19/11/2014
ORAL ORDER
01. The present petition is filed by the petitioner under Articles 14, 16 and 226 of the Constitution of India as well as under the provisions of the Gujarat Panchayat Service (ClassIII) Recruitment (Examination) Rules, 1999, under the provisions of the Gujarat Panchayat Service (Appointing Authority) Rules, 1996, under the provisions of the Compounder (ClassIII) Panchayat Service Recruitment Rules, 1998 and under the provisions of the Gujarat Panchayat Service Classification and Recruitment (General) Rules, 1998 for the prayers inter alia that appropriate writ, order or direction may be issued to quash and set aside the action of the respondent no.2 in not including the Page 1 of 6 C/SCA/13501/2014 ORDER name of the petitioner in the amended provisional list and the final list on the ground of non production of the creamy layer in Gujarat language.
02. Heard learned advocate, Shri Prajapati for the petitioner and learned AGP Shri Raval for the respondent no.1.
03. Learned advocate, Shri Prajapati referred to the papers and submitted that the petitioner was informed orally that his case has not been considered only on the ground that he could not produce the creamy layer certificate though he had already produced the same in English language. Learned advocate, Shri Prajapati submitted that subsequently he has also produced such certificate in Gujarati language, however, as it has not been considered, the present petition has been filed. He has also referred to the advertisement produced on record at AnnexureA, which is referring to the conditions and pointedly emphasized the conditions with regard to such certificate, wherein it has been specifically stated that the certificate, which is issued during the period between 01.04.2013 to 05.02.2014 in respect of the Page 2 of 6 C/SCA/13501/2014 ORDER financial year 201213 shall be considered. He therefore submitted that merely because it could not be produced in terms of the said advertisement requiring it in Gujarat as stated in the advertisement, the petitioner cannot be denied the appointment.
04. Learned AGP Shri Raval, however, referred to the conditions of the advertisement and submitted that it has been specifically provided in AnnexureA that how the certificate could be produced and Clause 10 is regarding condition. He again pointedly referred to Condition 3 which again refers to same aspect that when it should have been issued within a particular period by the competent authority in respect of the financial year 201213 then only it could be considered. He submitted that therefore there are number of other candidates, who may not have been considered and, therefore, the present petition may not be entertained as otherwise it would amount to giving benefit to the petitioner, who has approached this Court. He also submitted that the petitioner was aware and sufficient time was given and, therefore, he could have produced the same and, Page 3 of 6 C/SCA/13501/2014 ORDER therefore, the present petition may not be entertained.
05. In view of these rival submissions, it is required to be considered whether the present petition can be entertained.
06. The Recruitment Rules, which have not been produced, perhaps would provide only eligibility and the conditions and the certificate, which has been referred, has reference to the aspect of actual verification for the class or category to claim benefit of reservation as OBC. Therefore, it is a matter of only for the purpose of verification and does not refer to qualification or entitlement. Therefore, if the person is selected and otherwise found suitable, he cannot be denied the appointment only on the ground that he has failed to produce such certificate in a particular language as stated in the advertisement or in the formate as per Resolution dated 06.02.1996. It is required to be mentioned that if the person is thrown out on such a technical ground, it would amount to denying such opportunity inspite such policy. Therefore at the most, the petitioner could have been asked to Page 4 of 6 C/SCA/13501/2014 ORDER produce such certificate in the proper formate as required within stipulated period and opportunity ought to have been given so that it takes care of any apprehension by the authority with regard to the creamy layer. Thus, it could not have been verified whether the petitioner belongs to creamy layer or not on the basis of the certificate and the appointment could have been issued only after such verification. But opportunity of producing such certificate in proper formate could not have been denied and he could not have been rejected only on this ground. Therefore, the rejection of the claim of the petitioner only on the ground that as required under the advertisement, he has failed to produce the creamy layer certificate in a particular formate in a particular language cannot be approved. It is required to be mentioned that many candidates may apply for the jobs in the State Government as well as in the Central Government or the Government corporation. In some of the corporation or the employment in the Union Government, they would require them to submit certificate in English language. Therefore, it is too technical aspect to reject such claim without Page 5 of 6 C/SCA/13501/2014 ORDER providing the opportunity of producing the certificate as required.
07. Therefore, the petitioner is permitted to produce creamy layer certificate as per the formate and language as expected as per Government Resolution dated 06.02.1996 within a period of three weeks, which shall be considered by the respondent no.2 and on being satisfied about the aspect of creamy layer, consequence may follow including the appointment to the post of Compounder.
08. With the above observation and direction, the present petition stands disposed of accordingly.
Sd/ (RAJESH H.SHUKLA, J.) Gautam Page 6 of 6