Gujarat High Court
Yogesh Narotam Kateshiya vs Gujarat Public Service Commission ... on 2 December, 2022
Author: A. S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia
C/SCA/9789/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9789 of 2019
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9790 of 2019
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA Sd/-.
================================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ? NO
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? YES
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
of the judgment ? NO
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution NO
of India or any order made thereunder ?
================================================================
YOGESH NAROTAM KATESHIYA
Versus
GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION THRU. CHAIRMAN
================================================================
Appearance:
MR PA JADEJA(3726) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR RONAK RAVAL, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR CHAITANYA S JOSHI(5927) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
Date : 02/12/2022
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
1. RULE. Learned advocates waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respective respondents.
2. Pursuant to the advertisement No.GPSC/ 44/2018-19 issued by the respondent-GPSC in the month of August, 2018, the petitioners applied Page 1 of 8 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 01:22:43 IST 2022 C/SCA/9789/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2022 for the post of Principal, Gujarat Skill Training Services (Class-II). Since the petitioners were declared successful in the written examination, but were not included in the list of those candidates, who would be permitted to appear in the oral interview, the present writ petitions were filed.
3. By the interim orders passed by this Court, the petitioners were allowed to appear in the oral interview and subsequently, when their result which was kept in a sealed cover was opened in the Court, they have been found to be successful.
4. It is the case of the respondent authorities that the petitioners, who are serving as Assistant Store Keeper (Class-III) Technical Staff (Non-teaching) cannot be considered as eligible as per the Recruitment Rules and also as per the norms of the advertisement since they belong to the non-teaching staff category and the post which is required to be filled-in is of the Principal (Class-II) and their post is not equivalent to the post of Supervisor Inspector.
5. Learned advocate Mr.Jadeja appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are qualified for the post of Principal and would fall in both categories of 2(B)(ii) and (iii) of Page 2 of 8 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 01:22:43 IST 2022 C/SCA/9789/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2022 the Recruitment Rules, 2018. It is submitted that their pay-scales are similar to the pay-scale of Supervisor Instructor and they cannot be said to be holding a post below and hence, their candidature of seeking appointment to the post of Principal (Class-II) cannot be rejected on such ground. He has pointed out the provision of the advertisement, more particularly Clause-2 as well as the Recruitment Rules, 2018 in support of his submissions.
6. Learned Advocate Mr.Jadeja has also submitted that the pay-scale and grade of Supervisor Instructor and the Assistant Storekeeper is the same. It is submitted that since the pay-scale of Supervisor Instructor and Assistant Storekeeper is Rs.5200-20200 having grade pay of Rs.2800, it cannot be said that the petitioners are holding lower post than the post of Storekeeper.
7. Per contra, learned advocate Mr.Joshi appearing for the respondent - GPSC, while placing reliance on the affidavit has submitted that the post of Assistant Store Keeper (Class- III), which the present petitioners are holding, is not equivalent to the Supervisor Instructor (Class-III) as the petitioners are holding the post in the category of non-teaching staff and since the appointment is being made to the post of Principal (Class-II), the candidate, who is Page 3 of 8 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 01:22:43 IST 2022 C/SCA/9789/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2022 working in the teaching staff is only required to be considered. He has submitted that thus, the petitioners, who are serving in the non-teaching department, cannot be held eligible for the post of Principal (Class-II).
8. Learned AGP has adopted the arguments advanced by the learned advocate Mr.Joshi.
9. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and also perused the documents as pointed out by them.
CONCLUSION:
10. The facts, as narrated hereinabove are undisputed. The kernel of the issue raised in the present writ petition hinges on Rule 2(B)(ii) and
(iii) of the Recruitment Rules, 2018 framed vide notification dated 11.07.2018, which are also identically incorporated in the advertisement issued for filling-up the post of Principal (Class-II) by the respondent - GPSC in the month of August, 2018.
11. The petitioners have applied for the said post and have cleared the written examinations as well as oral interviews. The respondents are denying the appointment to the post of Principal (Class-II), for which the petitioners have applied, for the reasons that since they are Page 4 of 8 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 01:22:43 IST 2022 C/SCA/9789/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2022 working in the technical staff (non-teaching), and their post is not equivalent to the post of Supervisor Instructor as mentioned in the Recruitment Rules and also as per the norms of the advertisement.
12. Rule 2(B)(ii) and (iii) of the Recruitment Rules, 2018 of the Notification dated 11.07.2018 reads as under:
"Rule 2(B) possess-
(ii) about three years experience on the post not below the rank of Supervisor Instructor class-
III, in Gujarat Skill Training Service in the subordinate services of the Directorate of Employment and Training, Gujarat State, or
(iii) about Three years combined or separate experience in the field of training or maintenance or technical or technical supervision in the Government / Government Technical Teaching Institution or Private or Public sector Technical Teaching Institution / Vocational Training Institution / Government Undertaking Board / Corporation / Local Bodies or Limited Company established under The Companies Act, 2013 or training workshop or factory/industry engaged in Maintenance or Production or Designing or Teaching field on the post which can be considered equivalent to the post not below the rank of Supervisor Instructor Class-III, in Gujarat Skill Training Service in the sub-ordinate services of Directorate of Employment and Training, Gujarat State or"
13. So far as the criterion of possession of experience of three years by the petitioners is concerned, the same is not disputed and there is no cavil on that.
Page 5 of 8 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 01:22:43 IST 2022C/SCA/9789/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2022
14. A bare perusal of the provision of Clause(ii) and (iii) of sub-rule (B) of Rule 2 indicates that for the aforesaid appointment to the post of Principal (Class II), the candidate must possess 3 years of experience on the post not below the rank of Supervisor Instructor (Class III) and Clause (iii) refers that the candidate must have 3 years combined or separate experience in the field of training or maintenance of technical job or technical supervisor in the institute as mentioned hereinabove. The provision of advertisement inviting the application for filling-up the said post of Principal are identically worded and the same rules are incorporated in the advertisement. The respondents are denying the appointment to the post of Principal mainly on the reason that since the petitioner fall in the category of non- teaching staff, they are not entitled for the post of Principal. Neither the provisions incorporated in the advertisement nor the Recruitment Rules remotely suggest that the technical staff (non-teaching), to which the petitioners belong, is excluded from the zone of consideration. There is no clarification in the advertisement also that only those persons, who belong to technical (teaching) shall only be eligible for getting the appointment to the post of Principal. In wake of any conditions stipulated in the advertisement or in the Page 6 of 8 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 01:22:43 IST 2022 C/SCA/9789/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2022 Recruitment Rules, the respondents cannot exclude the petitioners from the zone of consideration.
15. On the contrary, Clause(iii) of sub-rule (B) of Rule 2, which is similarly worded in the advertisement points out that the candidate must have combined or separate experience in the field of training or maintenance or technical teaching or technical supervisor in the institution. Thus, a candidate, who is having an experience in the field of training, supervising as well as maintenance, who also belong to non-teaching field are also considered eligible for the post of Principal.
16. It is also not disputed by the respondents that the pay-scale and grade of Supervisor Instructor and the Assistant Storekeeper i.e. the post which the petitioners are holding is same. The pay-scale of Supervisor Instructor and Assistant Storekeeper is Rs.5200-20200 having grade-pay of Rs.2800. Both the posts are Class- III posts. Hence, it cannot be said that the petitioners are holding the post lower in rank than the post of Supervisor Inspector. Thus, there case for appointment cannot be denied on such ground.
17. In light of these observations, the writ petition is allowed. The respondent shall Page 7 of 8 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 01:22:43 IST 2022 C/SCA/9789/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/12/2022 appropriately place the petitioners as per their merit in the select/waiting list and, they shall be offered appointment as per their merit numbers. In case any person having the lower merit than the petitioners is offered appointment, they shall be offered such appointment within the period of two months from the date of receipt of the writ of the order of this Court.
18. The writ petitions are allowed. RULE made absolute.
19. Registry to place a copy of this order in the connected matter.
Sd/- .
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
NVMEWADA
Page 8 of 8
Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 01:22:43 IST 2022