Gujarat High Court
Rajeshkumar Kantilal Rami(Deceased) vs Chairman on 10 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH Court OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1044 of 2010
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
RAJESHKUMAR KANTILAL RAMI(DECEASED) & ANR.
Versus
CHAIRMAN, GPSC & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HARESH J TRIVEDI(927) for the Petitioners
MS SURBHI BHATI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 3,5 - State
MR DG SHUKLA(1998) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,4 - GPSC
MS PRACHI UPADHYAY for MR VAIBHAV A VYAS(2896) for the
Respondent(s) No. 6,7 - Private Respondents
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 10/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1.1 The present petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner with the following main prayers.
"29A. Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, orders or direction and be pleased to quash and set aside order dated Page 1 of 62 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:48:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined 03.12.2008, passed by Respondent No.5 and be pleased to open sealed cover to give appointment to the post of Assistant Manager Class-II and/or;
(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue necessary directions to compel GAD to declare its own decision without being influenced by others with reference to petitioner's representation at the earliest to declare the petitioner appointed to the post of Assistant Manager Class-II.
(C) Pending admission and final disposal of this petition, your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondent to give adhoc appointment to the post of Assistant Manager Class-II as an interim relief till the matter gets finally decided;
(D) Your lordships may be pleased to grant cost of this petition;
(E) Your Lordships may be pleased to pass such other and further order as the nature and circumstances of the case may require."
1.2 The petitioner has added prayer 29AA with the permission of the Court vide order dated 14.09.2012, which is as under.
"29AA. Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of quo warranto to against Mr.Premsingh B. Kanvar and Mr.Bholusingh G. Page 2 of 62 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:48:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined Thakur because they do not possess required supervisory experience as prescribed in original advertisement No.29/2000 of Gujarat Public Service Commission and have presented false and fabricated experience certificates. The respondents authorities may also be directed to prosecute them under criminal law and recover entire salary paid both of them read interest and negligent officers who did not check their papers properly may be brought under disciplinary action in accordance with law."
1.3 Thereafter, further prayer 29BB is also added by the petitioner with the permission of the Court vide order dated 08.11.2023, which is as under.
"29BB. Your Lordship may be pleased to issue appropriate direction to respondent Nos.3 and 5 to fix pay scale available to the husband of the applicant to the post of Assistant Manager Class- II with effect from 09.08.2012 and pay difference of pay with all other consequential benefits AND Be further pleased to direct the respondent Nos.3 to 5 to fix the pension of applicant's husband and pay difference upto 30.06.2020 with further direction to pay the family pension to the Page 3 of 62 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:48:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined applicant calculated on the basis of revised pay scale on the basis of new pay scale."
2. It is noted that during the pendency of this petition, the petitioner was promoted from the post of Copy Holder to the post of Proof Reader vide order dated 16.11.2013. It is further noted that the petitioner has retired by way of superannuation on 30.06.2020 from the post of Senior Examiner Class-III. It is also noted that during the pendency of this petition, the petitioner has expired on 22.08.2023, therefore the widow being the heir of the petitioner is joined as petitioner with the permission of this Court vide order of dated 20.10.2023 and she, therefore, carries out the cause.
3. Heard learned advocates.
4.1 Learned advocate Mr. Haresh Trivedi for the petitioner has submitted that the action of the respondent of rejecting the claim of the petitioner to the post of Assistant Manager Class-II on the ground of lack of experience is unlawfully, arbitrarily and ab-initio void; and that the respondents have deliberately misinterpreted their own advertisement and experience of supervisory nature or capacity and thereby the petitioner is negatively and Page 4 of 62 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:48:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined arbitrarily discriminated; and that the learned Single Judge of this Court, before passing interim orders, had called for necessary work order records to satisfy himself, which was placed before him, and the same were shown to the learned counsel for the Gujarat Public Service Commissioner ('the GPSC' for short) at that time; and that this fact is ignored by the respondent authorities while deciding the matter of the petitioner; and that all the certificates and credentials show that the petitioner is more capable even that of the Supervisor and he had worked as such and this fact was known to his superiors, which was reflected in the previous communication of General Administration Department ('GAD' for short) and Industries and Mines Department, both; and that the Industries and Mines Department changed its stand just because the GPSC mechanically disagreed; and that the action of the respondent is violative to the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner under the Constitution of India; and that admittedly, there is a play while reconsidering the case of petitioner in light of the directions given by the Court at the time of Special Civil Application No.11418 of 2000; and that this is a fit case for kind intervention of this Court; and that in direct appointment on merit, the principles of feeder cadre do not apply but the competence has to be judged based on qualification and nature of experience; and that the respondents have acted Page 5 of 62 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:48:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined mechanically; and that it is not open for the authorities to disbelieve the certificates of supervisory and other experience issued by the concerned authorities, which have given no objection after proper verification; and that the petitioner was one of the fittest candidates for the most advertised from the point of view of qualification, experience and knowledge but he was wrongly rejected at the threshold. 4.2 He has relied upon the opinion of the Deputy Secretary, Industries and Mines Department dated 07.09.2008 forwarded to the GPSC regarding the experience of the petitioner in view of the order passed in Special Civil Application No.11418 of 2000.
He has also relied upon the opinion / remarks of the department regarding the experience as well as the words 'supervisor capacity', which is mentioned in the advertisement in question.
He had also relied upon the various work orders issued to the petitioner by the Government Printing Department.
4.3 He has further submitted that the respondents ought to have considered the contents of the representation Page 6 of 62 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:48:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined dated 09.08.2012, which are self-explanatory in nature and done justice themselves in the interest of justice. 4.4 With regard to the prayer of issuing writ of quo warranto against respondents No.6 and 7 is concerned, he has submitted that respondents No.6 and 7 do not possess proper experience, which is evident from the clarification received from their previous employer; and that it also shows that the certificate produced by them is fake, fabricated and frivolous and they have cheated and misled the authorities in believing that they possessed requisite experience, but in fact they did not possess; and that these kind of persons should be criminally prosecuted by the GPSC and the authorities; and that they should be thrown out from the employment; and that the salary paid to them should be recovered with interest and negligent officers who did not check their certificate properly should also be punished after proper disciplinary action; and that both these candidates i.e. respondents No.6 and 7 do not possess proper supervisory experience and knowledge and they were not qualified; and that the writ of quo warranto should be issued against them in the interest of justice for the simple reason that they are unlawfully holding the post.
4.5 He has also submitted that the deemed date Page 7 of 62 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:48:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined promotion may be granted to the husband of the present petitioner as national promotion to the post of Assistant Manager Class-II with effect from date of his representation dated 09.08.2012 and further be pleased to pay difference of pay scale with all other consequential benefits till date of his retirement that is 30.06.2020; and that the petitioner may be paid difference of pension admissible to her husband on the basis of notional promotion, together with her family pension, on the revised pay scale with all other consequential benefits. He has submitted that this petition may be allowed. 4.6 In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the proceedings of Special Civil Application No.11418 of 2000, the papers of which are on record. He has also relied upon the decisions in the case Regional Manager, Central Bank of India versus Madhulika Guruprasad Dahir reported in (2008) 13 SCC 170, more particularly paras 14 to 16 thereof, which read as under.
"14. Similarly, the plea regarding rendering of services for a long period has been considered and rejected in a series of decisions of this Court and we deem it unnecessary to launch on exhaustive dissertation on principles in this context. It Page 8 of 62 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:48:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined would suffice to state that except in a few decisions, where the admission/appointment was not cancelled because of peculiar factual matrix obtaining therein, the consensus of judicial opinion is that equity, sympathy or generosity has no place where the original appointment rests on a false caste certificate. A person who enters the service by producing a false caste certificate and obtains appointment for the post meant for a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or OBC, as the case may be, deprives a genuine candidate falling in either of the said categories, of appointment to that post, does not deserve any sympathy or indulgence of this Court. He who comes to the Court with a claim based on falsity and deception cannot plead equity nor the Court would be justified to exercise equity jurisdiction in his favour.
15. An act of deliberate deception with a design to secure something, which is otherwise not due, tantamounts to fraud. Fraud is a conduct either by letter or words, which induces the other person or authority to take a definite determinative stand as a response to the conduct of the former either Page 9 of 62 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:48:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined by words or letter. [See: R. Vishwanatha Pillai V/s. State of Kerala & Ors., 2004 2 SCC 105 Bank of India (supra), Addl.
General Manager (supra), Derry V/s. Peek, 1889 14 AC 337, Ram Preeti Yadav V/s. U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education & Ors., 2003 8 SCC 311 and Bhaurao Dagdu Paralkar V/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2005 7 SCC 605].
16. In Ram Chandra Singh V/s. Savitri Devi & Ors., 2003 8 SCC 319, this Court had observed that fraud is anathema to all equitable principles and any affair tainted with fraud cannot be perpetuated or saved by the application of any equitable doctrine." 5.1 Per contra, learned AGP Ms.Surbhi Bhati for respondents No.3 and 5 - State Authorities has vehemently opposed this petition. She has drawn the attention of this Court towards the affidavit in reply filed by the State Authorities and has submitted that since the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification and experience for the post of Assistant Manager Class-II, the respondent authorities has not selected him at that time. She has submitted that the advertisement was of the year 2000 and we are now in Page 10 of 62 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:48:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined the year 2025; and that the petitioner was promoted during the pendency of this petition in the year 2013 from the post of Copy Holder to the post of Proof Reader; and that the petitioner has retired from service by way of superannuation on 30.06.2020; and that the action of the respondent authorities is just and proper; and that the respondents have not violated the fundamental rights of the petitioner. She has also submitted that initially, the petitioner has challenged the action of the respondent authorities of not permitting the petitioner to appear in the examination by way of Special Civil Application No.11418 of 2000, however, by way of interim relief, the Coordinate Bench of this Court has directed the respondents to permit the petitioner to appear in the examination and has also directed the respondents to keep the result of the petitioner in sealed cover. She has submitted that the petitioner was appeared and his result was kept in sealed cover by the respondents. Ultimately, that petition has been disposed of by the Coordinate Bench of this Court as withdrawn, with some directions; and that the respondents authorities have followed those directions and finally passed the impugned order dated 03.12.2008. 5.2 She has also submitted that as per Clause - 4(c) of the Notification dated 21.05.1996 issued by the Industries and Mines Department, which is regarding eligibility for Page 11 of 62 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:48:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined appointment by direct selection to the posts mentioned in Rule-2 that, a candidate shall have not less than five years' experience in supervisory capacity in modern composing, printing and complete knowledge of binding system as well as industrial cost accounting and estimating the knowledge of production management, cost control, factory administration in respect of labour problem in a big printing unit after obtaining education qualification. 5.3 She has also relied upon Clause - 2(g) regarding non-gazetted supervisory staff which means junior Assistant Manager, Office Superintendents, Head Clerks, Store Keepers (of Directorate of Printing and Stationery only), Senior Estimator, Senior Auditors, Supervisors (book depot), Mono Mechanic, Lino Mechanic, Machine Mechanic, General Mechanic, Head Mechanic, Overseers (of all Sections such as composing, printing, binding, standard, duplicating Unit), Head Examiner, Head Draftsman, Head Photographer and has submitted that the petitioner was not holding any of the above when he applied for the post in question. She has submitted that the petitioner was holding a post of Copy Holder only.
5.4 She has vehemently submitted that as per the Recruitment Rules, the petitioner is having an experience of Page 12 of 62 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:48:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined Copy Holder, which is not a supervisory post, therefore, the petitioner was not called for interview conducted by the GPSC at the relevant point of time, but as per the direction of the Coordinate Bench of this Court, he was permitted to appear in the examination.
5.5 She has further submitted that as per the earlier directions of this Court, the petitioner made a representation to the Chief Secretary, GAD, which, in turn, was forwarded to the recruiting department i.e. the Industries and Mines Department. She has also submitted that the recruiting department opined that the certificate and experience of the petitioner is not as per the recruitment rules, therefore, the opinion of the GPSC was asked for and the GPSC had opined that, the petitioner was not having the requisite public necessary experience of the supervisory post, which is required for the post in question / the advertisement in question.
5.6 She has further submitted that the petitioner was heard personally by the GAD on the second representation, therefore, the GAD has decided to take a second opinion from the GPSC and therefore, the said representation along with all the relevant papers of the file has been sent to the GPSC through the recruiting department i.e. the Industries Page 13 of 62 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:48:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined and Mines Department. However, the GPSC stood with its earlier decision that the petitioner was not possessing requisite / necessary experience of supervisory posts, as asked for in the advertisement in question. She has submitted that therefore, the recruiting department i.e. the Industries and Mines Department has rejected the representation of the petitioner with reasoned order, after getting an opinion from the GPSC and approval from the GAD and passed the impugned order dated 03.12.2008.
5.7 She has also submitted that thereafter also, the petitioner had made a third representation to the respondents and the respondents authorities have informed the petitioner that the order dated 03.12.2008 was already being served to the petitioner and the stand of the department would be the same.
5.8 She has also submitted that the petitioner is having an experience of the post of Copy Holder only. She has relied upon Rule - 490, Chapter XIV of the Printing and Stationery Manual, wherein the role / experience of Copy Holder is explained. She has submitted that the experience certificates which are produced by the petitioner cannot be considered for the supervisory post, as the same cannot be said that the petitioner was having an experience of Page 14 of 62 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:48:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined supervisory post because when a Copy Holder provided an order for charge of supervisory post then only it can be said that the Copy Holder was given a charge of supervisory post; and that in the present case, no such order for charge of supervisory post issued by the respondents in favour of the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner cannot be said that he has experience of supervisory posts, as required in the advertisement in question.
5.9 In support of her submissions, she has relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of : (i) Sajid Khan versus L Rahmathullah reported in 2025 INSC 251 = 2025 (0) AIJEL-SC 74782 and (ii) State of Assam versus Arabinda Rabha reported in 2025 INSC 334 = (2025) 7 SCC 705 and (iii) Maharashtra Public Service Commission versus Sandeep Shriram Warade & Others reported in 2019 (0) AIJEL-SC 64171 = (2019) 6 SCC 362. She has submitted that this petition may be dismissed.
6.1 Learned advocate Mr.Deepak Shukla for respondents No.1, 2 and 4 - the Gujarat Public Service Commission authorities has also vehemently opposed this Petition. He has submitted that the post in question is governed by the recruitment rules known as the Assistant Manager and Assistant Director (Technical), Class-II (in the Page 15 of 62 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:48:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined Directorate of Government Printing and Stationery), Recruitment Rules, 1996; and that as per Rule - 4(c), to be eligible for the post in question and as the petitioner was not fulfilling the requirement of experience, he was not called for the interview; and that for looking to the post of Copy Holder where the petitioner was working, it is not the post in supervisory cadre; and that various experience is required in the supervisory capacity for being eligible for the post in question; and that the petitioner does not have the experience of industrial cost accounting and estimation in the supervisory capacity; and that the petitioner has also no experience of production management, cost control and factory administration in respect of labour problems in the supervisory capacity as required under Clause - 4(c) of the Notification dated 21.05.1996; and therefore, the decision of the GPSC that the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification / experience for the post in question is just and proper; and that the decision of the GPSC on the ground of petitioner is lacking of experience is a decision of an expert body and therefore, this Court should not interfere in the matter.
6.2 In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the decision in the case of K.V. Garasiya versus Babubhai N. Gavit reported in 1998 (3) GCD 2461. He has submitted that Page 16 of 62 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:48:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined otherwise also, the entire selection process has been over and the result has been declared in the year 2001 itself and the Commission has already recommended the names of selected candidates to the State Government in the year 2001; and that even otherwise the GPSC had also asked for the opinion of the Government and the Government had opined that the experience of the petitioner is not of the supervisory category and therefore, the experience of the post of Copy Holder of the petitioner was not considered by the GPSC as required; and that the matter involving the issue of experience of the petitioner only and therefore, a question to be decided in the petition is as to whether a petitioner possesses experience in supervisory capacity as required under Clause - 4 or not; and that for deciding this issue, the experience of the petitioner and necessary documents produced by the petitioner were required to be considered for coming to the conclusion that a petitioner possesses requisite experience in supervisory capacity or not. He has submitted that this petition may be dismissed.
7.1 Learned advocate Ms. Prachi Upadhyay for learned advocate Mr.Vaibhav Vyas for the private respondents i.e. respondents No.6 and 7 has also vehemently opposed this petition. She has drawn the attention of this Court towards the affidavit in replies filed by respondents No.6 and 7 and Page 17 of 62 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:48:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined has submitted that the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the appointment of respondents No.6 and 7, as the petitioner was not eligible. She has further submitted that respondents No.6 and 7 participated in the recruitment process and it is the authorities, who have selected the respondents No.6 and 7 on merit and after scrutinizing all the relevant documents as well as requirements prescribed in the advertisement in question; and that there is a huge delay of about 10 years by the petitioner to challenge the appointment of respondents No.6 and 7, as the advertisement in question was of the year 2000 and the present petition is filed by the petitioner in the year 2010 and the petitioner has impleaded as party respondents being respondents No.6 and 7 in this petition in the year 2012. 7.2 She has further submitted that the respondents No.6 and 7 were meeting with all the eligibility criteria, including the criteria regarding experience, as prescribed in the recruitment rules as well as the advertisement, therefore, the authorities have rightly selected and appointed them on the post in question after considering the same. She has also submitted that the GPSC, being the authority, is the expert body with regard to the eligibility criteria prescribed in the advertisement as well as recruitment rules; and that the experience of the candidates is accessed by the interview Page 18 of 62 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:48:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined committee, which consists of expert in the said field and one of the members of the interview committee is the Director, Government Printing and Stationery. She has further submitted that after being appointed by the respondent authorities, the respondents No.6 and 7 have already completed more than 10 years of service, by this time, on the post of Assistant Manager Class-II and are due for being promoted on the next higher post of Manager Class-I, therefore, the action of the petitioner of challenging the appointment of respondents No.6 and 7, at this stage, is nothing but gross abuse of process of law for obvious mala fide considerations.
7.3 She has further submitted that even otherwise, if the petitioner has some grievance against respondents No.6 and 7, the same could be ventilated by filing a separate petition, however, the same could not have been challenged in this petition, wherein the subject matter of the original petition is altogether different.
7.4 She has further submitted that the petition being Special Civil Application No.13969 of 2013 has been filed by the petitioner, mainly seeking prayer against respondents No.6 and 7 only. However, that petition is disposed of as having become infructuous according to learned advocate Page 19 of 62 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:48:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined Mr.Trivedi for the petitioner at that time. She has admitted that this petition may be dismissed.
8. In rejoinder to the affidavit in reply filed by respondents No.6 and 7, the petitioner has submitted that the respondents No.6 and 7 got appointment by producing fake and fabricated bogus certificates which cannot be relied upon and GPSC replied that, they do not check credentials certificate of the candidate; and that the certificate of experience did not reveal all details like basic pay and full pay with description / nature of work in case of respondent which required; and that as per law, a person who has done cheating or fraud have got benefits of any kind by telling lies and producing bogus document, like experience certificate, can be prosecuted on civil or criminal side or both, hence, there is no question of any limitation; and that the petitioner can sue the respondents No.6 and 7 after specific knowledge about the wrong or unlawful act committed by him, hence, the limitation would not start prior to specific knowledge and the petitioner previously had no ideas with conclusive information; and that the expert body was made to fall into error because they had no idea about fraudulent conduct of the respondents No.6 and 7 and the authorities had not checked the legality / validity and genuineness of all the certifications produced by respondents No.6 and 7; and that Page 20 of 62 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:48:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined the GPSC should have checked everything before deciding to appoint respondents No.6 and 7; and that the petitioner was before this Court most pre time and he could challenge the appointment of respondents No.6 and 7 only after obtaining required information. He has submitted that the present petition may be allowed.
9. I have heard learned advocates for the respective parties. I have perused the documents available on record, including the affidavit in reply filed by the respective respondents.
10. It is noted that the petitioner has retired by way of superannuation on 30.06.2020. It is also noted that the petitioner has expired on 22.08.2023, therefore, the widow has joined as party petitioner and continues to pursue the cause. 11.1 From the record, it transpires that the petitioner was working with the Government Control Press, Gandhinagar, as a Copy Holder. The GPSC invited applications for making an appointment to the post of Assistant Manager Class-II in Government Printing and Stationery Department being Advertisement No.29/2000 published on 15.06.2000. There were total 6 posts. In the said advertisement, educational qualification is specifically Page 21 of 62 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:48:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined mentioned, which is that, (1) A Degree from the recognized University (2) A Diploma in Printing Technology or Graphic Arts awarded by the Technical Examination Board or University or an Institute recognized by the Government (3) Adequate knowledge of Gujarati. In the very advertisement, the experience is also specifically mentioned, which is that, a candidate shall have not less than five years' experience in supervisory capacity in Modern composing, printing and complete knowledge of binding system as well as industrial cost accounting and estimating the knowledge of production management, cost control and factory administration in respect of labour problem in big printing unit after obtaining educational qualifications. Further, in the said advertisement, the age is also mentioned, which is that the age shall not be more than 35 years.
11.2 Pursuant to the said advertisement, the petitioner has made an application on 15.07.2000. 11.3 The GPSC, vide its communication dated 24.08.2000 informed the petitioner that he is not selected for interview on account of the following reasons.
(1) Being not within the prescribed age limit. (2) Not possessing the prescribed educational Page 22 of 62 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:48:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined qualification.
(3) Not possessing the prescribed experience. (4) Your application, having been received after the last date prescribed for receipt of application, in the Commission's Office. (5) Not possessing the prescribed physical standard.
(6) Having not paid the prescribed fees along with for application.
(7) You have not produced necessary certificates in support of your education / experience. (8) Having not completed internship on the last date of receipt of application.
(9) Not being SEBC/SC/ST Candidate.
11.4 Admittedly, the petitioner has submitted a requisite certificate dated 12.09.2000 regarding his experience to the GPSC on 14.09.2000.
11.5 The GPSC has, vide its communication dated 23.10.2000, informed the petitioner that since he does not possess the requisite experience of supervisory cadre, he is not entitled to call for the personal interview. Page 23 of 62 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:48:50 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined 11.6 Therefore, the petitioner has preferred a petition before this Court being Special Civil Application No.11418 of 2000 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashment of the communications dated 24.08.2000 and 23.10.2000 as well as for direction to the respondents to call the petitioner for interview for the post in question subject to the result of petitioner as an effective interim relief during the pendency of that petition.
11.7 The Coordinate Bench of this Court (Coram : H.K. Rathod, J.) has passed an interim order dated 20.11.2000, whereby, the Court, on being primarily satisfied about the petitioner's eligibility, directed the respondents to allow the petitioner to appear and attend the oral interview that was conducted by the respondent during the pendency of that petition and the result of the oral interview of the petitioner was ordered to be kept in a sealed cover. 11.8 Accordingly, as per the directions of this Court, the petitioner was permitted by the respondents to appear in the examination and also conducted the oral interview of the petitioner and his result was kept in a sealed cover by the GPSC.
11.9 Finally, the Coordinate Bench of this Court Page 24 of 62 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:48:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined (Coram: C.K. Buch, J.) vide order dated 06.09.2001, while disposing of the matter, directed the department to open the sealed cover and act thereupon accordingly. 11.10 Against the said order dated 06.09.2001, the GPSC has preferred an appeal being Letters Patent Appeal No.255 of 2002, wherein, vide order dated 05.02.2003, the Division Bench of this Court has admitted the said appeal with a direction that the said sealed envelope is again called for today for perusal of the Court and is directed to be sent back to the Registrar for keeping it in safe custody. On the very same day, the Division Bench of this Court has, vide order dated 05.02.2003, recorded on Civil Application No.3891 of 2002, passed the following order.
"The order of the learned Single Judge, recorded in Special Civil Application No.11418 of 2000, dated 06.09.2001, shall stand stayed till further orders. It will be open for the appellant to take further action, which will be subject to the right and interest of the respondent original petitioner.
It is hereby accordingly, ordered that, you, your servants and agents, be and are hereby directed to stay the execution, operation and Page 25 of 62 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:48:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined implementation of the order of the learned Single Judge (Coram : Mr.Justice C.K. Buch) recorded in Special Civil Application no.11418 of 2000, dated 06.09.2001 till further orders. It is further ordered that, it will be open for the appellant to take further action, which will be subject to the right and interest of the respondent original - petitioner."
11.11 Ultimately, the said order was set aside by the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.255 of 2002 vide order dated 06.04.2005 and the matter was remanded back to the Single Judge for adjudication on merits. The order dated 06.04.2005 is as under.
"This appeal by the Chairman and the Secretary of Gujarat Public Service Commission (for short, "the Commission") is directed against order dated 6th September, 2001 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby he directed the Commission to declare the result of the interview of respondent no.1 for the post of Assistant Manager, Grade-II in Government Press.
A perusal of the record shows that in response to advertisement No.29 of 2000 issued by the Commission for recruitment of Assistant Manager, Grade-II in Government Press, respondent no.1 who was then holding the post of Page 26 of 62 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:48:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined Copy Holder in the Government Press and was posted at Gandhinagar submitted an application in the prescribed format. The same was rejected by the Commission on the ground that he does not possess the requisite experience. This was conveyed to him by the Deputy Secretary of the Commission vide letter dated 24th August, 2000. The representation made by respondent no.1, which was accompanied by some document showing that he possesses the experience of having worked in different departments of the Government Press was rejected by the Commission vide letter dated 23rd October, 2000. Thereupon, respondent no.1 filed writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by impleading the Chairman and the Secretary of the Commission and the Chief Secretary, Government of Gujarat as party-respondents for issuance of a direction to them to consider his candidature and appoint him on the post of Assistant Manager, Grade-II.
By an interim order dated 20th November, 2000 a learned Single Judge directed the Commission to interview respondent no.1 with the condition that the result of his interview may be kept in a sealed cover. Accordingly, respondent no.1 was interviewed, but the result of his interview was not declared.
Page 27 of 62 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:48:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined When the matter was listed for final
adjudication another learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration the affidavit filed by respondent no.1 that no departmental proceedings were pending against him directed the Commission to open the seal cover and take action as per the result of the interview. For the sake of convenience, order dated 6th September, 2001 passed by the learned Single Judge is reproduced below:-
"Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Today, he has tendered affidavit in compliance of the interim order passed by this Court on 20.11.2000. The affidavit tendered today is self explanatory and the same is in consonance with the order passed by this Court and the result of interview taken by the GPSC for the post of Assistant Manager Class-II, Government Printing Stationary held on 23rd August, 2001. The petitioner was interviewed by the GPSC and the result of the interview committee has been put into sealed cover as per the order passed by this Court on 20-11-2000.
Today, by way of affidavit, the petitioner has declared that no departmental proceedings are pending against the petitioner and he has intimated this fact to the GPSC vide letter dated 5.9.2001. It is submitted that the GPSC is also Page 28 of 62 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:48:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined provided with the copy of the affidavit dated 28.8.2001 which is tendered today. Substantive relief is granted by this Court at the time of passing interim order and as there is no counter to the averments made in the petition. Therefore, the department can be directed to see that the sealed cover be opened and GPSC as well as concerned department may act the sealed cover. Directions accordingly."
Shri S.K. Patel, learned counsel for the appellants argued that the learned Single Judge committed a serious error by directing the opening of the seal cover without even going into the issue of eligibility of respondent no.1 to be considered for appointment as Assistant Manager, Grade-II. He invited our attention to Rule 4 of the Assistant Manager and Assistant Director (Technical), Class-II (in the Directorate of Government Printing and Stationery), Recruitment Rules, 1996 (for short, "the Rules") and argued that the Commission had rightly rejected the application of respondent no.1 because he did not possess the requisite five years experience on the date of submission of application.
Shri Patel emphasised that respondent no.1, who was holding the post of Copy Holder, which is a Class-III post cannot be said to be working in a supervisory capacity and, therefore, Page 29 of 62 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:48:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined he cannot claim to possess five years experience in a supervisory capacity in modern composing, printing and complete knowledge of binding system as well as industrial cost accounting and estimating, the knowledge of production management, cost control and factory administration in respect of labour problem in a big printing unit, as contemplated by Clause (c) of Rule 4 of 1996 Rules and argued that the decision of the Commission not to entertain his candidature does not suffer from any legal infirmity.
Shri R.D. Raval, learned counsel for respondent no.1 argued that even though the order under challenge does not contain discussion on the issue of his client's eligibility to be considered for the post of Assistant Manager, Grade-II, we should presume that the learned Single Judge was fully satisfied that he possessed the requisite experience and decline interference with the direction given by him for opening the sealed cover. Learned counsel took us through the documents marked Annexure-C, E and F to show that even though respondent no.1 was holding the post of Copy Holder, he was assigned various supervisory functions and was entrusted with the task of training the staff of the Government Press. Shri Raval also made a grievance that while passing interim stay, the Division Bench Page 30 of 62 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:48:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined had entertained some of the documents produced by the learned counsel for the appellants though the same were not made available to him.
We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
At the outset, we deem it proper to observe that without filing an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code, learned counsel for the appellants should not have placed on record the documents which did not form part of the pleadings of the Special Civil Application. In our considered view, before any additional evidence can be taken into consideration at the appellate stage, the party seeking to produce such evidence must file proper application and obtain necessary order from the Court. In the present case, learned counsel for the appellants produced some documents without filing an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code and, in this manner, respondent no.1 was deprived of his right to make submissions with reference to those documents.
Notwithstanding the above, we are inclined to accept the argument of the counsel for the appellants that the learned Single Judge Page 31 of 62 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:48:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined should not have directed opening of the seal cover by the Commission without going into the issue of eligibility of respondent no.1 to be considered for the post of Assistant Manager Grade-II. Rule 4 of the Rules, which lay down the condition of eligibility for recruitment on the post of Assistant Manager, Grade-II and Assistant Director (Technical), Class-II reads as under:-
"4. To be eligible for appointment by direct selection to the posts mentioned in rule 2, a candidate shall -
(a) not be more than 35 years of age;
(b) possess a degree from the recognised
University and possess a diploma in printing
technology or Graphic Art awarded by the
Technical Examination Board or a University or an Institute recognised by the Government;
(c) have not less than five years' experience in Supervisory capacity in modern composing, printing and complete knowledge of binding system as well as industrial cost accounting and estimating, the knowledge of production management, cost control and factory administration in respect of labour problem in a big printing unit after obtaining educational qualification; and
(d) possess adequate knowledge of Gujarati;
Provided that the upper age limit may be Page 32 of 62 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:48:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined relaxed in favour of a candidate possessing exceptionally good qualification or experience or both.
Provided further that the upper age limit may be relaxed in favour of a candidate who is already in the service of the Government of Gujarat in accordance with the provisions of Gujarat Civil Service Classification and Recruitment (General) Rules, 1967, as amended from time to time."
In the present case, the Commission, had refused to entertain the candidature of respondent no.1 on the ground that he does not possess the requisite experience. However, without going into the legality and correctness of this decision in the context of the relevant rule, the learned Single Judge directed the Commission to declare the result of his interview by assuming that the only impediment in his selection was some contemplated or pending enquiry. We are sure that if attention of the learned Single Judge had been drawn to the fact that the candidature of respondent no.1 was rejected by the Commission on the ground of non-fulfillment of one of the conditions of eligibility and not the pendency of the departmental inquiry then he would certainly examined that aspect and decide whether interim order passed by the learned Single Judge on 21st November 2000 for interview of respondent no.1 Page 33 of 62 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:48:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined should be given effect to by directing the Commission to open the seal cover.
For the reasons mentioned above, we held that the direction given by the learned Single Judge to the Commission to open the seal the cover is legally sustainable.
In the result, the appeal is allowed. The order of the learned Single Judge is set aside and the matter is remanded for fresh adjudication of the Special Civil Application filed by respondent no.1. The case may now be listed before an appropriate Single Bench on May 9, 2005.
While disposing the appeal in the manner indicated above, we give liberty to the original petitioner (respondent no.1 herein) to make suitable amends in the Special Civil Application by impleading Gujarat Public Service Commission as party-respondent and also give liberty to the latter to place on record additional documents, if any, to justify its decision not to entertain the candidature of respondent no.1."
11.12 The matter was thereafter heard by the Coordinate Bench of this Court (Coram : S.R. Brahmbhatt, J.), wherein, the petitioner has submitted that he will make appropriate Page 34 of 62 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:48:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined representation before the authorities concerned and the authorities connection may decide the said representation in stipulated time. Accordingly, the petitioner has seek permission to withdraw that petition with a liberty to file fresh petition in case of adverse orders from the respondents. 11.13 Accordingly, upon the statement made by the petitioner at the bar, that petition was disposed of as withdrawn vide order dated 21.11.2007 with the following directions.
"9(i) The petitioner is at libert y to make appropriate representation to the concerned Secretary in the General Administration Department, State of Gujarat.
(ii) The concerned Secretary in the General Administration Department is hereby directed to decide the representation, if any, preferred by the petitioner, within reasonable time. Representation is to be decided in consultation with the Public Service Commission in light of the Recruitment Rules for the post in question and other relevant material, in accordance with law.
(iii) The respondents are expected to dispose of the representation of the petitioner preferably within six months from the date of receipt Page 35 of 62 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:48:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined thereof."
11.14 The petitioner has thereafter made a representation before the appropriate authority on 04.02.2008. 11.15 There were many correspondences made by the GPSC, the Industries and Mines Department, the GAD and the petitioner thereafter.
11.16 Finally, the Industries and Mines Department has, vide its impugned order dated 03.12.2008, rejected the claim of the petitioner for the post in question vide its reasoned order.
11.17 It is this order / communication impugned dated 03.12.2008, which is challenged by the petitioner before this Court in this petition with the prayers noted hereinabove.
12. From the above, this Court finds that the only issue which falls for determination before this Court would be that whether the petitioner possesses the requisite experience, as per the advertisement in question, or not. 12.1 It is noted that indisputably, the petitioner was working as a Copy Holder. Therefore, it would be fruitful to Page 36 of 62 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:48:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined refer to Rule 490 of Chapter XIV of the Printing and Stationery Manual, wherein, the role / experience of Copy Holder is explained, which is as under.
"490. Copy Holder - Each reader is given a copy holder whose duty is to read the 'copy' given and to do readers work occasionally when required. It is not permissible for the reader to read the manuscript and give the proof correction work to his copy holder. A copy holder should be able to read MSS in English, Gujarati and Devnagari and should possess good knowledge of grammar, composition, spelling and punctuation."
12.2 Further, at this stage, the Notification of the Industries and Mines Department dated 21.05.1996, more particularly Clause 4(c) thereof would also be fruitful to refer to, which is as under.
"4. To be eligible for appointment by direct selection to the posts mentioned in Rule-2, a candidate shall -
(c) have not less than five years' experience in supervisory capacity in modern composing, printing and complete knowledge of binding system as well as industrial cost accounting and estimating the knowledge of production management, cost control, factory administration Page 37 of 62 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:48:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined in respect of labour problem in a big printing unit after obtaining education qualification."
12.3 The hierarchy of promotion in the department where the petitioner was working, would be that the lowest cadre was the Copy Holder, then one step upper is a Reader, then a Senior Examiner, then a Head Examiner and then the Assistant Manager.
12.4 The advertisement in question was for the post of Assistant Manager Class-II. It is a direct recruitment by way of public advertisement.
12.5 The experience as well as educational qualification and age have been specifically mentioned by the GPSC in the advertisement in question noted above. 12.6 Initially, the GPSC has found that the petitioner was not selected for interview on the various grounds, including the lack of requisite experience. 12.7 At this stage, the notification of the Industries and Mines Department dated 21.05.1996, more particularly, Clause 5 thereof would be fruitful to refer to here, which is as under.
Page 38 of 62 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:48:50 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined "5. To be eligible for appointment by direct selection to the posts mentioned in Rule 2, a candidate shall -
(a) not be more than 35 years of age;
(b) possess a degree from the recognized
university and possess a diploma in printing
technology or Graphic Art awarded by the
Technical Examination Board or a University or any Institute recognized by the Government;
(c) have not less than five years' experience in Supervisory capacity in modern composing, printing and complete knowledge of binding system as well as industrial cost accounting and estimating, the knowledge of production management, cost control factory administration in respect of labour problems in a big printing unit after obtaining educational qualification; and"
12.8 It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner has done varies activities in various departments by the orders of the authorities, but it cannot be said that the petitioner was possessing requisite qualification of supervisory post / cadre for five years, as required under the advertisement in question.
12.9 It is noted that vide resolution dated 07.08.1991 of the Industries and Mines Department, it is decided that the cadre of Overseer will be considered as supervisory cadre.Page 39 of 62 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:48:50 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined Indisputably, the petitioner was holding the post of Copy Holder and the said post of Copy Holder is not considered as supervisory cadre, as required under the advertisement in question.
12.10 At this stage, it would also be fruitful to refer to the Notification dated 15.03.1985 issued by the industries, Mines and Power Department, more particularly Clause 2(g) thereof, whereby it is specifically clarified that which posts are to be considered as supervisory staff / cadre. The said Clause is as under.
"2(g). Non-gazetted supervisory staff means Junior Assistant Managers, Office Superintendents, Head Clerks, Store Keepers (of Directorate of Printing and Stationary only), Senior Estimators, Senior Auditors, Supervisors (book depot), Mono Mechanic, Lino Mechanic, Machine Mechanic, General Mechanic, Head Mechanic, Overseers (of all Sections such as composing, printing, binding, standard, duplicating unit), Head Examiner, Head Draftsmen, Head Photographer."
12.11 On being directed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.11.2007, the representation of the petitioner was considered in consultation with the GPSC, the GAD and other appropriate authorities and ultimately, the Page 40 of 62 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:48:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined respondent authorities has passed the impugned order dated 03.12.2008 by holding that the certificates and documents attached by the petitioner with his representations are not considered as the experience of supervisory capacity for five years, as required under the advertisement in questions as well as the same are not in consonance with the Assistant Manager Class-II Recruitment Rules and therefore, the representations of the petitioner have been rejected. 13.1 At this stage, it would be fruitful to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sajid Khan (supra), more particularly paras 18 to 21 and 23 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 what is required by the post in cases of disputed equivalence. This Court has stated the same in categorical terms in its decision Anand Page 41 of 62 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:48:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined 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 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 Page 42 of 62 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:48:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined 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 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.
Page 43 of 62 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:48:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined 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 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 Page 44 of 62 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:48:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined 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 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 Page 45 of 62 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:48:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined 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 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 Page 46 of 62 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:48:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined 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 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)"
23. Even if some ground exists for the High Court to exercise judicial review, the standard that the High Court would adopt, as indicated in Uma Shankar Sharma v. Union of India, (1980) 3 SCC 202. would be to see that, the terms and conditions of service are [intended to be] construed reasonably, and too technical a view can defeat the essential spirit and intent embodied in them. In light of the law re-iterated above and considering the fact that the employer has not objected Page 47 of 62 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:48:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined to the appellants diplomas, it was not appropriate for the High Court to take a technical view of the matter and set aside the appointments."
13.2 It would also be fruitful to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arabinda Rabha (supra), more particularly para 35 thereof, which reads as under.
"35. It cannot be gainsaid that the factors of "when", "which", "what", "who" and "how" that are associated with a recruitment/selection process is the prerogative of the recruiting authority and the selectors; however, at the same time, the process has to be conducted consistent with statutory provisions governing the same, if any, as well as principles of absolute fairness and complete non- arbitrariness. Though it is true that the law does not postulate a fetter on the authority of the employer-State and it is within the domain of the Government when to initiate a process of recruitment for public employment, either according to recruitment rules or even in the absence thereof, it is for the Government of the day to decide in which manner it proposes to conduct selection, what would be the various stages the candidates aspiring for appointment Page 48 of 62 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:48:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined have to pass through in order to be placed in the select list, who would be the selectors, and how weightage is to be given to each of the testing methods, a great deal of credence is lent to a process if it is fairly and transparently conducted in accordance with rules, whatever be its source, without the slightest hint of any bias or favouritism or nepotism. Normally, it is not for the courts to interfere unless the process smacks of mala fides. However, the right to be considered for public employment being a Fundamental Right, it would be safe and prudent to have recruitment rules to govern the process of selection so that the best possible talent is appointed in public service. Obviously, assessing the merit of the candidates aspiring for public employment on the basis of a prescribed standard would not only provide a level playing field for each of them, the excellence of any institution to which the appointment is to be made would depend directly on the proficiency of its members/staff and that would, in turn, depend on the quality and merit of those who offer themselves for selection and ultimately get selected, necessitating the selection to be conducted without any hidden taint or masked mala fides. Last but not the least, having regard to present times when corruption has been held to be a walk of life by certain responsible citizens of the country, it would have been desirable if Page 49 of 62 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:48:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined the process of recruitment of 104 Constables were conducted after framing of recruitment rules and also prescribing a written examination to keep the process absolutely above board."
13.3 It would also be fruitful to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sandeep Shriram Warade (supra), more particularly para 10 thereof, which reads as under.
"10. 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 at 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 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 Page 50 of 62 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:48:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined 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."
14. At the cost of repetition, it is noted that during the pendency of this petition, the petitioner was promoted by the department vide order dated 16.11.2013 from the post of Copy Holder to the Proof Reader. It is also required to be noted that the petitioner has retired by way of superannuation on 30.06.2020. At that time, the petitioner was Senior Examiner Class-III.
15.1 With reference to the role of the GPSC in the entire selection process is concerned, on being sending the requisition by the Industries and Mines Department, the GPSC has issued public advertisement in the Gujarat Samachar, a daily newspaper, for the post in question on 15.06.2000. The said selection is governed by the Recruitment Rules known as the Assistant Manager and Assistant Director (Technical), Class-II (in the Directorate of Government Printing and Stationery), Recruitment Rules, 1996. As per Rule-4(c) of the Rules, 1996, the petitioner was Page 51 of 62 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:48:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined not fulfilling the requirement of experience and therefore, he was not called for the interview, as various experience is required in the supervisory capacity for being eligible for the post in question and admittedly, looking to the post of Copy Holder, where the petitioner was working, is not the post in supervisory cadre. Indisputably, the petitioner does not have the experience of industrial cost accounting and estimation as well as production management, cost control and factory administration in respect of labour problems in the supervisory capacity under Rule-4(c) of the Rules, 1996. 15.2 At this stage, it would be fruitful to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "16. A perusal of the Recruitment Rules framed for the post in question under proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution on 22/02/1972 indicates that there is no provision specifying the dates from which qualification of experience will be considered or computed. The relevant rule is Rule 3 which can be reproduced as under : -
"3. To be eligible for appointment by direct selection to the post mentioned in Rule 2. A candidate must -Page 52 of 62 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:48:50 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined
(a) be not more than 35 years of age; and
(b) possess a Bachelor's Degree either in Arts, Science, Agriculture, Commerce, Law or Engineering of a recognised University or an equivalent qualification, with about 5 years' experience in any responsible post in an administrative capacity : Provided that preference may be given to a candidate possessing experience in Land Acquisition matters, Town Planning and Municipal Laws.
Provided, further that the age limit may he relaxed in favour of a candidate possessing exceptionally good qualification or experience or both;
provided further that the upper age limit may be relaxed in case of Gujarat State Servants in accordance with the provisions of the Gujarat Civil Services Classification and Recruitment (General) Rules, 1967 as amended from lime to lime."
Now, therefore, to consider the question whether the experience gained by the Page 53 of 62 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:48:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined petitioner before graduation can be taken into consideration or not, reference may be made to Rule 8. sub-rule (8) of the Gujarat Civil Services Classification and Recruitment (General) Rules, 1967 which reads as under :-
"(8) Where the qualifications prescribed for any service or post include a qualification as to practical experience for a given period and applications are invited for such service or post the period of practical experience shall be computed -
(a) Unless otherwise provided in
Recruitment Rule from the date on
which requisite qualifications are
obtained.
(b) With reference to the last date
fixed for receipt of such application."
In this regard, clause (b) of sub-rule (8) makes it very clear that the qualification as to practical experience shall be computed with reference to the last date fixed for receipt of such application, which is 1/04/1996, in the instant case before us. In this regard, the proviso to Rule 3 of the Page 54 of 62 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:48:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined Recruitment Rules in question, if read, also indicates the intention of the Government of deriving support from the provisions of Gujarat Civil Services Classification and Recruitment (General) Rules. 1967 and. therefore, when there is no specific provision in these Rules, reference has to be made to the provisions of the Gujarat Civil Services Classification and Recruitment (General) Rules, 1967. Even otherwise it is settled proposition of law where there is no specific provision in special rules framed for recruitment to a post, the general rules shall prevail.
17. In the instant case, it is also to be noted that the special Recruitment Rules for the posts in question do not specifically provide for computing the date from which the requisite qualification of experience is to be computed, and therefore, clause (a) of sub- rule (8) of Rule 8 of Gujarat Civil Services Classification and Recruitment (General) Rules, 1967, will come into play which specifically provides that unless it is otherwise provided the period of practical experience shall be computed from the date Page 55 of 62 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:48:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined on which the requisite qualifications are obtained which is 10/04/1992 in the instant case.
18. The outcome, therefore, is that the practical experience that can be taken into consideration in the case of respondent No. I would be from 10/04/1992 to 1st April, 1996 which h would be definitely less than five years qualifying experience. To be exact, it would be three years and eight months. In this regard, it is also to be considered that the argument advanced by Mr. Parmar that the G.P.S.C. has power to relax the experience requirements as conceded to by the other side. Such relaxation is given to the extent of one month for every year of experience, and therefore, also the relaxation can at the most be for four months and if that is added the total experience would be four years which would be again less than the requisite qualifying experience. This being so, no error seems to have been committed in deciding for considering respondent No. 1 as lacking requisite experience, and therefore, even if the power to relax was exercised by the G.P.S.C., it would not have helped Page 56 of 62 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:48:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined respondent No. 1 in any manner. Against this, it would not be out of place to observe that when it comes to exercise of discretion by such authority. Court is not supposed to sit in appeal while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India and has to be slow in using its discretion. The period of experience has to be computed after graduation unless contrary is provided is also a proposition settled by the Supreme Court while deciding the case of N.Suresh Nathan& Anr. V/s. Union of India and Ors., AIR 1992 SC 564. The contention of Mr. Parmar that the qualification of experience is not essential but is only preferential is difficult to be accepted. If the Recruitment Rule for the post in question particularly Rule 3 is perused it makes it abundantly clear that the candidate to be eligible must possess a bachelor's degree either in Arts, Science, Agriculture, Commerce, Law or Engineering with about 5 years' experience in any responsible post in an administrative capacity. It is, therefore, very clear that the candidate must possess both the qualifications, namely, a bachelor's degree and about 5 years' experience. To Page 57 of 62 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:48:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined overcome this difficulty, it was contended that the advertisement inviting applications in Gujarati newspaper averred that the candidates with about 5 years' experience will be given preference/priority, and therefore, that must prevail in the instant case. In this regard, the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the G.P.S.C. makes it clear that the advertisement published in English was in consonance with the Recruitment Rules, and there was a mistake in the Gujarati advertisement. In our view, such a clerical error cannot create a situation of overriding the rules framed under proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution of India. Such mistakes can definitely be corrected as and when noticed. Such advertisement inviting applications does not confer a right to the candidates applying for such posts."
15.3 On the basis of the opinion given by the Government vide its letter dated 19.10.2002, the experience of the petitioner is not of the supervisory cadre. Therefore, the experience of a post of Copy Holder of the petitioner was not considered by the GPSC as required under the advertisement in question.
Page 58 of 62 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:48:50 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined 15.4 For deciding the issue regarding experience of the petitioner, the documents produced by the petitioner have been considered by the various authorities and come to the conclusion that the petitioner does not possess the requisite experience in supervisory capacity as required under the advertisement in question. Therefore, since the role of the GPSC is very limited to the above extent, no relief, more particularly, the relief as prayed for by the petitioner may be granted at this stage.
16.1 This regard to the contention of the petitioner of issuing writ of quo warranto against respondents No.6 and 7, who are the selected candidates, is concerned, it would be fruitful to refer to the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 19.01.2024 recorded on this petition with Special Civil Application No.13969 of 2013, which reads as under.
"Mr.Trivedi, learned counsel submits that the main petition i.e. Special Civil Application No.21235 of 2016 is not notified alongwith the present petitions.
Re-list the matter on 1st February 2024. Registry is directed to notify Special Civil Application No.21235 of 2016 along with Special Page 59 of 62 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:48:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined Civil Application No.1044 of 2010.
So far as Special Civil Application
No.13969 of 2013 is concerned, according to
Mr.Trivedi, learned counsel, it has having become infructuous and in case of any difficulty, the liberty be reserved.
In view of the above, Special Civil Application No.13969 of 2013 stands disposed of as having become infructuous. Rule is discharged. Interim relief, if any, granted earlier stands vacated forthwith.
In the case of any difficulty, the petitioner is at liberty to approach this Court."
16.2 It is noted that the petitioner had filed Special Civil Application No.13969 of 2013 before this Court with the following main prayers.
"18(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus on the respondent Government department to arrange to take necessary disciplinary actions against the respondent no.6 and 7 (Mr. Kanvar and Mr.Thakur) and other erring officer who either did not perform their duty properly and acted neglecting or deliberately ignored inadequacies of Page 60 of 62 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:48:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined respondent no.6 and 7.
(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of quo warranto against the respondent no.6 and 7 declaring them unlawfully selected usurpers to the original post of Assistant Manager Class II in printing and stationary department and be pleased to order to terminate them in accordance with law.
(C) Your Lordships may be pleased to order of recovery and of salary and allowance paid to respondent no.6 and 7 till date with 9% penal interest per month thereon.
(D) Pending admission and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the Director of Government of Printing and Stationary to order Departmental Inquiry, against the respondent no.6 and 7 and produce report before this Honourable Court after completing the inquiry within 6 months, as as to enable this Honourable court to pass further necessary interim or final orders in this matter;
(E) Your Lordships may be pleased to grant any other and further relief as may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice.
(F) Your Lordships may be pleased to grant Page 61 of 62 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:48:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined costs of this petition."
17. In view of above, this Court finds that the impugned order dated 03.12.2008 passed by the respondent authorities is just, legal and proper. There is no perversity or mala fide in the impugned order. The authorities have rightly considered all the aspects as well as rules, provisions and administrative directions in proper sense. The prayers as prayed for against the respondents as well as against respondents No.6 and 7 need not be granted under these circumstances, at this stage.
18. There cannot be any dispute with regard to the law enunciated in the decision of the Hon'ble Apex 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 that decision with such facts.
19. For the reasons recorded above, this petition needs to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly. Rule is discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J) M.H. DAVE Page 62 of 62 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Thu Sep 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:48:50 IST 2025