Gujarat High Court
Gujarat Public Service Commission vs Digvijaysinh Mahendrasinh Chavda on 6 August, 2025
Author: A. S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1111/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/08/2025
undefined
Reserved On : 30/07/2025
Pronounced On : 06/08/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1111 of 2015
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13857 of 2014
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR DIRECTION) NO. 1 of 2016
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1111 of 2015
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR DIRECTION) NO. 1 of 2020
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1111 of 2015
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA Sd/-
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
Versus
DIGVIJAYSINH MAHENDRASINH CHAVDA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DG SHUKLA(1998) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR SHALIN MEHTA, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH
MR SHASHVATA U SHUKLA(8069) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,4 WITH
MR SP MAJMUDAR(3456) & MR HJ KARATHIYA(7012) for the
Respondent(s) No. 3,5,6,7,8,9,10,11 WITH
MR HET N SHAH(11211) for the Respondent(s) No. 25
MR AAKASH GUPTA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 12
MR SANDIP M PATEL(5649) for the Respondent(s) No. 16,23,24
MR VAIBHAV A VYAS(2896) for the Respondent(s) No. 17,18,19,20,21,22
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA) Page 1 of 21 Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:50:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1111/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/08/2025 undefined
1. The present appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, 1895 is directed against the judgement and order dated 11.06.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in the captioned writ petition being Special Civil Application No.13587 of 2014 and allied matters.
2. The group of writ petitions, in which other issues are raised, is also decided by the learned Single Judge vide common judgement and order dated 11.06.2015. So far as the issue, which is raised in the captioned writ petition and appeal is concerned, the same is confined to the Notification dated 18.05.2009 issued by the Forest and Environment Department amending the Gujarat Forest Service, Class-II Recruitment Rules, 2007 more particularly, Rule 3 thereof and the Proviso therein, which stipulates about filling up 25% vacancies of direct recruits from the appointing candidates, who possess B.Sc. degree with Forestry as a principal subject, as far as practicable. Another issue, which was also raised herein, is relating to the action of granting 7% bonus marks to a candidate, who possesses B.Sc. Degree with Forestry as principal subject.
BRIEF FACTS:
3. On 01.03.2010, the appellant-Commission i.e. Gujarat Public Services Commission issued an Page 2 of 21 Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:50:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1111/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/08/2025 undefined advertisement for filling up 47 posts of Assistant Conservator of Forest (Class-II) (for short "the ACF") and 120 post of Range Forest Officer (Class-II) (for short "the RFO"). In the advertisement, it was stipulated that as far as practicable 25% posts shall be filled in from the candidates, who possess B.Sc. having Forestry as their main degree / subject. Primary examination of 150 marks and the main examination would be of 700 marks followed by oral interview i.e. viva voce of 70 marks. The private respondents No.1 to 11 (original petitioners) participated in the recruitment process. All the private respondents have Forestry as their main subject in B.Sc. Degree.
4. The State Government on 25.09.2014 issued a further notification stipulating that those candidates, who possess the B.Sc. Degree with Forestry as their principal subject will be given bonus 7% marks in addition to the marks they have obtained in the written examination and viva voce. The said notification refers to the decision of the appellant-Commission dated 15.04.2013. It is the case of the private respondents that when they had received their call letters for their main examination, it was stated therein that they would be given benefit of 7% bonus marks. When the select list was notified vide Notification dated 25.09.2014, Page 3 of 21 Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:50:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1111/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/08/2025 undefined names of the private respondents did not appear and it appeared in Part-2 list of the unsuccessful candidates, which was issued vide notification dated 25.09.2014. It appears that their names were not included as they obtained less marks than the qualifying standard for the respective categories even after addition of 7% bonus marks. Qualifying standard of General male category appears to be 429 marks, whereas for SEBC male category, the same is of 375 marks, for Schedule Caste male category it is of 387 marks and for Schedule Tribe male category it is of 316 marks. This led to filing of the writ petition(s).
5. Learned Single Judge, while deciding the group of petitions, including the captioned writ petition with other issues, allowed the writ petitions filed by the private respondents. Being aggrieved, the appellant-Commission has filed the present appeal.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT-COMMISSION AND RESPONDENT NOS.17 TO 22
6. At the outset, learned advocate Mr.Shukla appearing for the appellant-Commission has submitted that against the very same impugned judgement and order dated 11.06.2015, one appeal being LPA No.1105 of 2015 was filed and the same was disposed of vide order dated 31.03.2021. It Page 4 of 21 Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:50:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1111/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/08/2025 undefined is submitted that the candidates have preferred SLP (Diary) No.10105 of 2021, which is pending before the Apex Court and it is urged that the present appeal may not be taken up.
7. So far as merits are concerned, learned advocate Mr.Shukla has submitted that the learned Single Judge fell in error in allowing the writ petitions since the Recruitment Rules governing the appointment of the ACF and RFO have not been appropriately appreciated. It is submitted that only 21 candidates were found eligible for viva voce (personal interview) and out of them, only 10 candidates were declared successful, after adding 7% bonus marks, as per the decision of the appellant-Commission vide notification dated 15.04.2013. It is submitted that since the private respondents could not secure minimum qualifying marks, they were declared unsuccessful vide notification dated 25.09.2014. It is submitted that this vital aspect has not been considered appropriately by the learned Single Judge.
8. While placing reliance on the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Om Prakash Shukla Vs. Akhileshkumar Shukla and Ors. , (1986) Supp. S.C.C. 285, learned advocate Mr.Shukla has submitted that it is not open for the private respondents to question the recruitment process, Page 5 of 21 Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:50:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1111/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/08/2025 undefined after appearing in the examination. Thus, it is urged that the present appeal may be allowed by setting aside the judgement and order passed by the learned Single Judge.
9. Learned advocate Mr.Vaibhav Vyas appearing for the successful respondent nos.17 to 22 has adopted the submissions advanced on behalf of appellant-Commission. He has submitted that the said respondents are already appointed and now are already promoted to the post of Deputy Conservator of Forests vide order dated 23.02.2022, and it will not be appropriate to unsettle them at this stage.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PRIVATE RESPONDENTS
10. In response to the aforesaid submissions, learned senior advocate Mr.Mehta appearing for the private respondents has submitted that the appellant-Commission has miserably failed to point out a source of fixing 7% bonus marks. It is submitted that the notification dated 18.05.2009 mandates that 25% seats are required to be filled in from the candidates, who have Forestry as their principal subject. It is submitted that the amended Proviso to Rule 3 of the Recruitment Rules, 2007 categorically uses expression "as far as practicable", which is also found in the advertisement, and the same has to be applied in a strict sense and it does not mean Page 6 of 21 Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:50:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1111/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/08/2025 undefined that the recruiting agency can totally ignore the same and fill up the vacancies with those candidates, who do not possess special subject. It is submitted that the select list indicates that the appellant-Commission has only selected 10 candidates, who have Forestry as their principal subject. Thus, it is submitted that out of 167 posts, 42 posts were required to be filled in by the candidates having Forestry as a principal subject and on the contrary, only 10 posts are filled in, which is contrary to the advertisement and the Recruitment Rules, 2007 itself. It is submitted that the additional 7% bonus marks granted to such candidates is meaningless and is not permissible under the Recruitment Rules, 2007 and neither the same is provided in the advertisement nor the appellant- Commission has provided any rules and regulations, which permit them to grant 7% additional bonus marks. Thus, it is submitted that the learned Single Judge has precisely allowed the captioned writ petition by holding the action of the appellant-Commission as illegal and arbitrary.
11. In support of his submissions, learned senior advocate has placed reliance on the following decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of :
Page 7 of 21 Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:50:23 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1111/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/08/2025 undefined Mohd. Sohrab Khan Vs. Aligarh Muslim University, 2009 (4) S.C.C. 555;
Madan Mohan Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan , 2008 (3) S.C.C. 724;
Sreedam Chandra Ghosh Vs. State of Assam , 1996 (10) S.C.C. 567;
State of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors. Vs. Ajay Dogra, 2011 14 S.C.C. 243;
ANALYSIS
12. We have heard the learned advocates for the respective parties at length and also perused the documents as pointed out by them.
13. In our considered opinion, the issue, which is raised in the captioned writ petition is already answered by the Coordinate Bench in its decision dated 31.03.2021. (reported in 2021 (2) GLH 751, Gujarat Public Service Commission vs. Niketa Babulal Chaudhari). Initially, learned advocate Mr.Shukla has urged not to take up the appeal in view of pendency of SLP (Diary) No.10105 of 2021. We may at this stage, clarify that the said SLP also arises from the very same impugned judgement and order dated 11.06.2015 passed in Special Civil Application No.13587 of 2014 and allied matters, against which LPA No.1105 of 2015 was filed and vide judgement and order dated 31.03.2021 the Division Bench has disposed of the same.
Page 8 of 21 Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:50:23 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1111/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/08/2025 undefined
14. By the order dated 23.04.2021, while issuing notice in the said SLP, the Apex Court has further recorded that "In the meantime, the persons who have already been appointed and are working shall not be disturbed."
15. The judgment of the Coordinate Bench dated 31.03.2021 passed in LPA No.1105 of 2015 is not stayed. The issue raised in the present appeal and the appeals, which are disposed of by the Coordinate Bench are intrinsically connected, as the select list declared vide Notification dated 25.09.2014 by the appellant-Commission and regulating the recruitment process, is declared without authority of law.
16. There are two preliminary grounds raised by the private respondents-original petitioners in the writ petition. The first is lack of authority or absence of any material to substantiate fixation of 7% bonus marks to the candidates, who possess the special subject of Forestry, as per the decision dated 15.04.2013 taken by the appellant-Commission and the second is invoking the Proviso to Rule 3 of the Recruitment Rules, 2007 mandating to fill up the post of the ACF, as far as practicable, by 25% from those candidates, who possess Forestry as their main subject.
Page 9 of 21 Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:50:23 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1111/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/08/2025 undefined
17. We may incorporate the relevant amendment of Proviso of Rules 3 of the Recruitment Rules, 2007 vide notification dated 18.05.2009. The same is as under:
"1. Theses rules may be called the Assistant Conservator of Forests in the Gujarat Forest Service, Class II, Recruitment (Amendment) Rules, 2009.
2. In the Assistant Conservator of Forests in the Gujarat Forest Service, Class II, Recruitment Rules, 2007, In rule 3, the following proviso shall be added, namely:-
"Provided that twenty five per cent. vacancies of direct recruits shall, as far as practicable, be filled up by appointing candidates who possesses B.Sc. Degree with Forestry as a principal subject".
18. It is not in dispute that there were 167 posts, out of which 120 posts were to be filled in of RFO and 47 posts of the ACF and at the end of the recruitment process, only 10 posts were sought to be filled in from such candidates, who possess their degree with principal subject of Forestry. Thus, the private respondents challenged the aforesaid action by alleging that the expression "as far as practicable" found in the aforementioned Rules cannot be applied in an arbitrary manner by filling up only 10 posts out of 167 posts.
19. The appellant-Commission, in order to fix the bonus marks, has taken decision on 15.04.2013 however, there is no rules or regulations or Page 10 of 21 Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:50:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1111/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/08/2025 undefined administrative instructions on record to point out fixation of 7% bonus marks. Unquestionably, the said criteria is published in the advertisement and the decision is only taken by the appellant-Commission by adopting the Gujarat Public Service Commission Procedure Rules, 1962 to regulate its procedure and function. It is admitted by the appellant-Commission that no specific provision is made in any rule with regard to 7% bonus marks and decision is taken by the appellant-Commission for regulating the results.
20. It is the case of the appellant-Commission that the private respondents have obtained less marks than the qualifying standard in their respective categories and even if they were given additional 7% bonus marks in the main written examination as well as viva voce, they cannot be selected as they did not obtain the qualifying standard marks of the respective categories. The candidates, who possess the degree with Forestry subject, were granted 7% additional bonus marks in the main written examination and the second time at the viva voce with another 7% additional bonus marks and despite the same, the respondents did not qualify.
21. The learned Single Judge, while examining the entire selection process and on the aforesaid Page 11 of 21 Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:50:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1111/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/08/2025 undefined issue, along with other issues raised in various writ petition has held as under:
"25. For the foregoing reasons and in light of the facts, the impugned method and procedure followed by GPSC and the basis adopted by GPSC for fixing / determining the qualifying standard as well as the qualifying marks/standard determined and settled and adopted by GPSC are not sustainable and deserve to be set aside and are consequently set aside and as corollary all subsequent and consequential decisions and actions by a GPSC which are taken in pursuance of and on the basis of such qualifying standard (decided in impugned method) fall and stand vitiated. At this stage, it is necessary to further clarify that the action of determining qualifying marks / standard and/or the action of allowing relaxation therein are, essentially, not sustained on account of the manner in which the said process is carried out and the basis which GPSC adopted and not for want of power. The action of allowing relaxation is not sustained also because it is tainted with vice of discrimination and the error of not applying relevant factors and not for want of power. The action of allowing relaxation is not sustained also because it is tainted with vice of discrimination and the error of not applying relevant factors and not for want of power".
(ii) Relaxing qualifying standard:
26. So far as regards the said second aspect, it is relevant to mention that the action of the GPSC of applying qualifying standard (determined by it in above discussed manner) to the process of selection of female candidates seeking selection in reserved quota caused substantial shortfall in number of female candidates though, sufficient number of female candidates in each category, who meet with and fulfill the eligibility criteria prescribed by Rules and notified in the advertisement, are available. The GPSC therefore, took further step and granted relaxation in the qualifying standard (so as to fill-
up a reserved quota). However, the appellant- Commission, simultaneously, also decided to limit the extent of relaxation in qualifying standard to 10% and to select only those female candidates, who came Page 12 of 21 Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:50:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1111/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/08/2025 undefined within the range of 10% relaxation. The said action is also under challenge.
X X X X X
30. There is another relevant dimension or perspective to this issue viz. the discriminatory action by the GPSC inasmuch as the commission adopted different criterion (i.e. of 7%), which it implemented by way of adding 7% marks in the marks secured by the candidates in written examination and in the marks obtained by the candidates at the interview) rather than applying the same criterion (i.e. 10%), which it applied in case of quota reserved for women. Though this is another form of granting relaxation, different criterion / yardstick is applied in the same selection process.
30.1. For justifying the action of adopting criterion of 10% as the limit for granting relaxation in case of quota reserved for women, the GPSC took shelter under the umbrella of the opinion given by the learned Advocate General however, in the matter related to reservation for candidates with special subject, even that umbrella is not available to the GPSC inasmuch as for undisclosed reasons. The GPSC did not apply the same criterion / yardstick (viz 10%) and instead it applied another / different yardstick (i.e. 7%) in case of the quota reserved for the candidates with special subject, and that too without offering any explanation or justification for applying different standards / yardstick in matter of implementing said reservation inasmuch as any explanation, or reason or justification either for fixing the said limit / extent or for applying such different standard and criterion in respect of the candidates with special subject and that too in respect of same selection process is not mentioned or offered by the GPSC.
30.2. Moreover, when the GPSC gave go- by to the said criterion of 10% and did not follow the same principle and the same criterion while complying the reserved quota candidates with special subject, there must be a reason and justification for adopting different treatment while complying reservation in respect of same selection process. Neither any reason nor any justification for not following the same criterion and principle comes out from the record or Page 13 of 21 Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:50:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1111/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/08/2025 undefined from the submissions advanced by the learned advocate appearing for the GPSC. No explanation is offered for adopting or selecting limit of 7% for complying the quota reserved for candidates with special subject and/or about the factors, if any, which were taken into consideration for deviating from the criterion, which it had adopted and applied while complying the quota reserved for women candidates.
30.3. Thus, the GPSC has adopted discriminatory approach in respect of same selection process, while implementing reservation for women and reservation for candidates with special subject and it is also hit by vice of not taking into account and not applying relevant factors for complying reservation prescribed for the candidates with special subject and the GPSC has not acted in judicious manner but has acted mechanically and on ipse dixit and without rationale.
31. In the result, the decision and action of the GPSC, with regard to determining limit or extent of relaxation in qualifying standard for implementing reservation in respect of quota reserved for women as well as in case of quota reserved for candidates with special subject, are, for the foregoing reasons, not sustainable and they deserve to be set aside and are accordingly set aside.
X X X X X X
34. Now so far as the candidates with special subject are concerned, it is not in dispute that the State authority has prescribed 25% reservation for the candidates, who possess said special qualification and it is also not in dispute that the facts in their cases are almost similar to the reservation (@ 30%) for female candidates inasmuch as it is undisputed that the said candidates (the petitioners in SCA No.13587 of 2014) also possess and fulfill eligibility criteria prescribed by the Rules and notified in the advertisement and they were also have been subjected to same screening process and they have also passed through same examination.
34.1. Similar objections and contentions are raised with regard to the action of the GPSC transferring, similar grounds, the position from the quota reserved for 'the candidates possessing special qualification' Page 14 of 21 Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:50:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1111/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/08/2025 undefined to the 'candidates not possessing such qualification' and by applying the qualifying standard fixed by it (in the manner discussed earlier), the GPSC has selected only 10 candidates and treated balance position as vacant on the same ground and, therefore, the said decision and action of treating balance notified position as vacant as well as the action of transferring said balance position to other candidates not possessing such qualification also fail for the same reasons as in the case of position in the quota reserved for women and likewise, the impugned action qua the candidates with special subject / qualification deserves to and is hereby set aside.
X X X X X X
44. At this stage, it is pertinent to mention and note that even according to the appellant-Commission, the selection list which was notified on 25.09.2014 was not prepared as per the decision in case of Ramesh Ram (supra) and thereafter, suddenly the appellant-Commission decided to prepare the selection list in light of the decision in case of Ramesh Ram (supra) and, consequently, the GPSC revised the selection list dated 25.09.2014 by applying the principles and guidelines in case of Ramesh Ram (supra). It is pertinent that the GPSC has not offered any explanation as to the reason for not applying the principles mentioned in the decision of Ramesh Ram (supra) at the original stage i.e. when list/result dated 25.09.2014 was notified and by suddenly changing its stance, the GPSC revised the selection list dated 25.09.2014.
44.1. The fact that the selection list, which was notified on 25.09.2014, was prepared without taking into account the decision in the case of Ramesh Ram (supra). The same is not only evident from the Notification dated 23.01.2015 but it is also admitted by the GPSC in paragraphs No.5 and 5.1 of the affidavit dated 09.02.2015 filed by the GPSC in SCA No.14899 of 2014.......
X X X X X 51.1. So far as the decision prescribing / determining the qualifying standard is concerned and the decision to relax the qualifying standard and the matter related to the decision to restrict the extent of such relaxation to 10% and/or 7% are concerned, Page 15 of 21 Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:50:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1111/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/08/2025 undefined all other objections now pale into insignificance in view of the fact that this Court has held that the qualifying standard determined by GPSC and the method and procedure followed by it and the basis adopted by it for said purpose are faulty, irrational and unsustainable, and the decision to restrict the extent of relaxation in case of quota reserved for women and the quota reserved for candidates with special qualification is discriminatory and unjust. Thus, all other objections including the objections that these aspects were not declared by GPSC and informed to the petitioners, do not survive. X X X X X
57. In the result and as an upshot of foregoing discussions:
(a) the qualifying marks / standard (described as cut-off marks by the GPSC determined and applied by the GPSC by following and adopting earlier discussed method, procedure and base are, for the recorded reasons, set aside.
(b) Consequently, all subsequent decisions and actions which are based on the said qualifying standard and/or which are taken pursuant to and/or on the basis of and by applying the said qualifying standard / cut-off marks do not survive and all such consequential decisions, steps and actions are set aside.
(c) In the result and for the recorded reasons, impugned selection list notified by the appellant-
Commission on 25.09.2014 stands quashed. Thus, the list revised by the GPSC vide Notification dated 23.01.2015 automatically falls and does not survive.
(d) The action of the GPSC of categorizing part of the notified vacancies reserved for women candidates and also out of the vacancies reserved for candidates with special subject, as vacant and the further / subsequent action of transferring the position out of reserved quota for women candidates to male candidates and out of the quota reserved for candidates with special subject, to other candidates not holding said special qualification, also stand quashed.
Page 16 of 21 Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:50:23 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1111/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/08/2025 undefined
(e) The action of considering the meritorious reserved category candidates (who secured their position in general/open category on account of their performance) in their respective reserved category only because they availed benefit of "concession" which cannot be considered as "relaxation in merits"
also set aside since it is found to be contrary to the decision by Apex Court in the case of Jitendra Kumar Singh (supra).
(f) So far as SCA No.14849 of 2014 is concerned, it stands partly allowed inasmuch as petitioners' objection against the qualifying standard fixed by GPSC and the objection against adopting criterion of 10% for relaxing qualifying standard and the objection against considering the marks obtained by last male candidate as cut-off marks / qualifying standard are accepted and the selection list prepared on such basis is set aside. However, the contention that meritorious reserved category candidates who secured position in general/unreserved (open) category list should be, for the purpose of complying reserved quota, considered in their respective reserved category is not accepted. Horizontal reservation, even compartmentalized reservation, cannot be maintained by taking away a slice from the quota for vertical reservation.
(g) So far as Special Civil Applications No.14330/2014, 14331/2014 and 16620/2014 are concerned, the said petitions are also partly allowed inasmuch as the objection against qualifying standard fixed by GPSC by considering marks of last candidate as the base is accepted and the qualifying standard determined by GPSC on such basis and the selection list are set aside and the objection against adopting criterion of 10% for relaxing said qualifying standard is also accepted. However, so far as the further relief claimed by the petitioner in Special Civil Application no.16620 of 2014 that her case should be considered for the post of AFO is concerned, it is clarified that at this stage, the said request cannot be considered because now the process of preparing fresh selection list will have to be undertaken and it shall be finalized afresh.
(h) So far as Special Civil Application No.13857/2014 is concerned, the said petition is also partly Page 17 of 21 Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:50:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1111/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/08/2025 undefined allowed inasmuch as the decision of applying said qualifying standard and the decision to apply criterion of 7% for relaxing qualifying standard and the decision to consider part of the notified position from the quota reserved for candidates with special subject (i.e. the candidates holding specified special qualification) as vacant and the further decision to transfer such position to the candidates not holding qualification of special subject by treating such notified position as vacant, is set aside.
(i) So far as Special Civil Application No.15057/2015 is concerned, having regard to the fact that at the relevant time, only one contention/objection was raised and pressed in service, viz. the impugned notification is bad and unsustainable because waiting list is not prepared and notified under the said notification, the said petition is, therefore, examined in light of the said singular contention and with regard to the said objection (of the petitioner in Special Civil Application No.15057/2015) it is found and held that in light of applicable Rules said objection is not sustainable. Though the said petitioner did not raise any other contention with regard to the notification and/or selection list, it is clarified that the decision with reference to the qualifying standard / cut-off marks and the selection list (with regard to the objections by other petitioners) will apply to and will govern the case of the petitioner in SCA No.15057/2015 also.
(j) So far as Special Civil Applications No.1100/2015 and 1141/2015 are concerned, the said petitions are also partly allowed and the decision of the respondent GPSC of considering the candidates who availed benefit of relaxation / reservation though they have not availed benefit of relaxation in qualifying standard, is, it being contrary to the decision by Apex Court in case of Jitendra Kumar Singh (supra), set aside.
(k) So far as Special Civil Application No.2125/2015 is concerned, in view of the fact that the qualifying standard / cut-off marks decided by the GPSC is set aside, the decision with regard to allotment of any candidate to the post of ACF or RFO will have to be taken afresh by the respondent GPSC after preparing Page 18 of 21 Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:50:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1111/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/08/2025 undefined fresh selection list and that, therefore, at this stage, the declaration as prayed for by the petitioner (i.e. to allot the said petitioner to the post of ACF) cannot be granted. However, so far as other contentions which are similar and common as in other petitions, are concerned, they shall be governed by the conclusion with reference to other petitions. It is clarified that if the petitioner has any grievance with regard to her allotment after fresh selection list is prepared, then at that stage, it would be open and permissible to the petitioner to take appropriate action against the decision by GPSC.
However, in view of the Court's decision with reference to the qualifying standard / cut-off marks, the consequential actions including allotment of the candidates to the higher post will not survive and that process also will have to be taken afresh."
22. The Coordinate Bench in the judgement and order dated 31.03.2021 (reported in 2021 (2) GLH 751, Gujarat Public Service Commission Vs. Niketa Babulal Chaudhari), has examined the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, and finally, following directions are issued:
"11 As reproduced hereinabove, the major bone of contention that this Court in these Appeals is called upon to decide is whether the method, procedure and the basis followed and adopted by the GPSC for determining the qualifying standards (described by the GPSC as "cut-off marks") and by adopting such criteria which was not declared and informed to the candidates amounted to changing the rules of the game. The second consequential issue that, therefore, deserves consideration is whether it was open for the GPSC to transfer the quota reserved for female candidates to male candidates xxxxxx 20 On all these counts therefore, the directions issued by the learned Single Judge in para 57 of the Page 19 of 21 Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:50:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1111/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/08/2025 undefined decision, as quoted in paragraph no. 3.7 hereinabove, especially in (a), (b), (c), (g), (k) stand confirmed. As far as the observations made in para 57
(f) that the horizontal reservation cannot be maintained by taking away a slice from quota of vertical reservation is held to be contrary to spirit of horizontal and compartmental reservation in light of the decision in the case of Rajesh Kumar Daria (supra). LPA No. 1187 of 2015 is therefore disposed of accordingly."
23. Thus, the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgement and order dated 31.03.2021 has confirmed the directions issued by the learned Single Judge of the impugned judgement and order dated 11.06.2015 in paragraph Nos.57(a), (b),
(c), (g), and (k), whereas the directions issued in paragraph No.57(f) are not confirmed. The directions issued in the aforenoted paragraph Nos.57(a), (b), (c), (g) and (k) will directly have an impact on the present case. Vide direction 57(a), the learned Single Judge has set aside the procedure/standards adopted by the appellant-Commission in determination and applying the qualifying marks has been set aside, and as a sequel or the subsequent action and decisions of the appellant-Commission on the basis are also set aside. In the direction 57(c), the selection list notified by the appellant- Commission on 25.09.2014 and the revised list dated 23.1.2015 is also set aside. In direction Page 20 of 21 Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:50:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1111/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/08/2025 undefined 57(k), the appellant-Commission is directed to prepare a fresh selection list of the ACF or RFO.
24. Thus, since the aforesaid directions issued by the learned Single Judge are confirmed by the Coordinate Bench, and since there is no stay operating against the judgement and order dated 31.03.2021, the appellant-Commission has to follow the same, and prepare a fresh selection list, in case the same is not prepared. The Letters Patent Appeal, stands dismissed accordingly. However, as clarified by the Supreme Court in the order dated 23.04.2021, the persons i.e. the respondents Nos.17 to 22 herein, who are appointed and are working shall not be disturbed.
Sd/-
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J) Sd/-
(R. T. VACHHANI, J) NVMEWADA/12 Page 21 of 21 Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:50:23 IST 2025