Gujarat High Court
Chiragkumar Subhashchandra Bhatia vs State Of Gujarat on 3 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1672/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1672 of 2018
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR DIRECTION) NO. 1 of 2019
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1672 of 2018
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR INTERIM RELIEF) NO. 1 of 2020
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1672 of 2018
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10290 of 2018
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
CHIRAGKUMAR SUBHASHCHANDRA BHATIA
AND
PRITIKABEN AMRUTLAL SARTANA & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR TR MISHRA & MR DIPAK B PATEL, ADVOCATES for the Petitioners
MR GH VIRK, GOVERNMENT PLEADER with
MR SH VIRK & MS MAITRI MODI, AGPs for the Respondents
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 03/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1.1 Special Civil Application No.1672 of 2018 is filed Page 1 of 22 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 18 22:37:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1672/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025 undefined by the petitioner with the following main prayers.
" 7(A) That Your Lordships be pleased to issue an order, direction and/or writ in the nature of certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the impugned Advertisement marked ANN.A to this petition insofar as the said Advertisement does not provide relaxation in passing marks in respect of Physically Handicapped Person and be further pleased to issue direction to the respondent to amend the Advertisement in consonance with the instructions issued by Government of Gujarat, General Administration Department, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar and the instructions by Government of India, Ministry of Personnel;
(B) That Your Lordships be further
pleased to direct the respondent not to
declare the result of the examination unless the Advertisement is amended and relaxation in the passing marks in respect of SC, ST, SEBC, OBC and Physically Handicapped Persons is prescribed by the government;Page 2 of 22 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 18 22:37:52 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1672/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025 undefined (C) Pending admission and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships be pleased to issue direction to the respondent to take decision of relaxation of passing marks in respect of reserved categories of SC, ST, SEBC, OBC and Physically Handicapped candidates;"
1.2 Special Civil Application No.10290 of 2018 is filed by the petitioner with the following main prayers.
"16(B) Allow this petition by issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction by quashing and setting aside the impugned advertisement marked as Annexure-A to this petition insofar as the said advertisement does not provide relaxation in passing marks in respect of Physically Handicapped persons and further be pleased to issue direction to the respondents to amend the advertisement in consonance with the instructions issued by Government of Gujarat, General Administration Department, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar and the instructions issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel;
Page 3 of 22 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 18 22:37:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1672/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025 undefined (C) Further be pleased to direct the
respondents not to declare the result of the examination unless the advertisement is amended and relaxation in the passing marks in respect of SC, ST, SEBC, OBC and Physically Handicapped persons is prescribed by the Government;
(D) Pending admission and till final disposal of this petition, be pleased to direct the respondents to permit the present petitioners to participate in the further process of recruitment for the post of Livestock Inspector pursuant to the advertisement (Annexure-A);"
2. Heard learned advocates. Rule returnable forthwith. Since the controversy, arising from the very advertisement in question, in both these petitions are identical, the contentions raised and submissions made by the learned advocates are on the same line, with consent of the learned advocates, both these matters are heard and decided together today. 3.1 On behalf of the petitioner/s, it is submitted that the advertisement in question does not mention reservation for handicapped person but passing marks for all the Page 4 of 22 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 18 22:37:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1672/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025 undefined categories are kept 40%, which is illegal and not permissible. It is submitted that the Government of Gujarat has issued instruction to the Selection Board to grant 10% relaxation in the merit to SC, ST, SEBC, OBC and Physically Handicapped. It is further submitted that the General Category and persons with sound health cannot be compared with Physically Handicapped and SC, ST category. The advertisement in question is against the reservation policy of the Government as well as against the Disability Act. 3.2 It is submitted that the advertisement in question is illegal insofar as the said advertisement does not provide relaxation in the marks for Physically Handicapped person. It is submitted that according to the instructions issued by the General Administration Department, 10% relaxation in the marks is required to be given and according to the instructions issued by the Government of India, the relaxation is to be given in the standard of marks to fill up reserved post for Physically Handicapped person. 3.3 It is submitted that there are 400 posts of Livestock Inspector advertised, out of which, 11 ports are reserved for Low Vision and 11 ports are reserved for Hearing Impairment. If the relaxation in the marks is not given, the Disabled Person and SEBC community cannot Page 5 of 22 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 18 22:37:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1672/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025 undefined compete in the open test for the post of Livestock Inspector. The advertisement in question is, therefore, illegal and against the instructions issued by the Government of Gujarat. 3.4 It is submitted that some of the petitioners have sent a detailed representation to the respondents and other authorities, narrating everying in detail on 18.04.2018, which remained unaswered till filing of the petition. It is submitted that these petitions may be allowed.
4.1 Per contra, Mr. G.H.Virk with learned Government Pleader Mr. S.H.Virk and Ms.Maitri Modi learned AGP's for the State has vehemently opposed these petitions. He has submitted that all the petitioners are unsuccessfully candidates who have failed to secure minimum 40% marks in the first stage i.e. written examination and have approached the Hon'ble Court challenging the said advertisement. He has further submitted that minimum qualifying standard for all categories including Physically Handicapped category was 40% marks for both stages of the recruitment. He had submitted that only five candidates from the Physically Handicapped category could obtain minimum qualifying marks in the first stage i.e. competitive written examination and there were no candidates of Physically Handicapped category available between the prescribed criteria of minimum qualifying marks Page 6 of 22 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 18 22:37:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1672/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025 undefined of 40% and between the cut-off marks for this category i.e. 57.75. The marks obtained by the last Physically Handicapped candidate automatically becomes the final cut-off of that particular category.
4.2 He has submitted that reliance placed on the office memorandum dated 29.12.2005 issued by the Government of India by the petitioners is misconceived as the same is applicable only on the employees of the Government of India. He has submitted that the petitioners have erroneously interpreted Clause-3 of the Instructions issued by the General Administrative Department dated 29.09.2015. The Instructions provide that : (i) Out of the merit prepared for General category, 10% less merit is permissible for reserved category i.e. SC, ST, SEBC, General Category Female Physically Handicapped and Ex-serviceman; (ii) Minimum standard of merit across all categories cannot be less than or below 40%. He has submitted that the petitioners are misreading the instructions and demanding 10% relaxation in qualifying marks below the minimum 40% marks, which is not permissible.
4.3 He has drawn the attention of this Court towards the various replies filed by the contesting respondent and has submitted that a minimum requirement of 40% marks is not Page 7 of 22 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 18 22:37:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1672/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025 undefined the cut-off marks. Insofar as the cut-off marks pursuant to the present petition is concerned, the same are considered as the marks obtained by the last candidate eligible to appear for the second stage test, meaning thereby, the last candidate after calling three tims the total post advertised in each category. He has submitted that the advertisement in question prescribes for the examination pattern whereby in first stage of written examination, a minium of 40% are required to be secured in order to get considered for appearign in the second stage of examination i.e. computer proficiency test. He has submitted that the present petitioners have secured less than 40% marks in the written examination, thereby, securing les than the minimum qualifying marks prescribed for being eligible for appearign in teh second stage examination i.e. computer proficiency test. He has submitted that it is the respondent who has right to fix the minimum eligibility criteria to maintain the efficiency of work.
4.4 In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.2 of 2024 In Re: Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services and analogues cases reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 481 dated 03.03.2025 and decision of the Division Bench of this Court dated 14.02.2022 recorded Page 8 of 22 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 18 22:37:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1672/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025 undefined on Letters Patent Appeal No.154 of 2022 in Special Civil Application No.12362 of 2018.
4.5 He has submitted that these petitions may be dismissed.
5. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned advocates of the respective parties. I have perused the documents available on record. 5.1 From the record, it transpires that the advertisement in question i.e. Advertisement No.134/2017-18 was published on 26.07.2017 by the Gujarat Subordinate Services Selection Board, Gandhinagar for total 400 posts of Livestock Inspector Class-III. Out of which, 11 posts are reserved for Low Vision and 11 posts are reserved for Hearing Impairment. As averred, the petitioners are disabled persons having 40% disability of low vision. The methodology adopted for conducting examination by the respondent authorities is prescribed in two stages; first stage is Written Test and second stage is Computer Proficiency Test. The respondent authorities have specifically mentioned in the advertisement itself that the minimum qualifying standard for all categories including Physically Handicapped category was 40% marks for both stages of the recruitment vide Government Resolution / letter / Circular / Communication Page 9 of 22 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 18 22:37:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1672/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025 undefined dated 29.09.2015. It is a matter of record that all the petitioners did not secure minimum marks of 40% in the first stage i.e. Written Test conducted by the respondent authorities. Therefore, as per the policy and the procedure adopted by respondent No.2, the candidate who fails to secure minimum of 40% marks cannot be called for appearing in second stage examination i.e. Computer Proficiency Test. It is at this stage, the petitioners have approached this Court. 5.2 By way of these petitions, the petitioners seek amendment in the advertisement which was issued by the respondent authorities on 26.07.2017. All the petitioners have filled up their candidature forms. The authorities have called for the written examination i.e. first stage of the recruitment process. All the petitioners have appeared in the first stage examination. They have not challenged the advertisement at the relevant point of time indisputably. Even they have not challenged the procedure adopted by the respondent authorities for conducting the first stage examination i.e. written examination. Even they have not challenged the procedure after appearing in the first stage examination i.e. written examination. They have challenged the advertisement and procedure of selection at the stage when the result is declared and they are not declared successful and thereby not called for the second stage examination i.e. Computer Page 10 of 22 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 18 22:37:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1672/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025 undefined Proficiency Test. It is at that belated stage and when they declared unseccussful in the first stage i.e. written examination, they have approached this Court by way of present petitions. The advertisement in question is very specific. The respondent authorities have specifically mentioned all the criteria in the advertisement in question. It cannot be presumed that the petitioners have filled up their candidature forms without going through all the details mentioned in the advertisement. Under the circumstances, the conduct of the petitioners smacks a lot. If the petitioners have grievance about the publication of advertisement as well as process of selection mentioned in the advertisement, they should have to challenge at the relevant point of time. When the petitioners declared unsuccessful in the first stage i.e. written examination, they raised their grievance before this Court regarding the advertisement and the procedure prescribed by the respondent authorities in the said advertisement, which is not permissible at all. 5.3 At this stage, it would be fruitful to refer to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court recorded on Letters Patent Appeal No.154 of 2022 in Special Civil Application No.12362 of 2018 dated 14.02.2022, wherein the identical issue about the minimum of 40% marks has been discussed and decided. In the said proceedings, the very Page 11 of 22 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 18 22:37:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1672/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025 undefined advertisement has been challenged qua the issue of minimum of 40% marks. No one has reported regarding further proceeding/s before the higher forum against the said appeal. The relevant observations made by the Division Bench are as under.
"6. The learned Single Judge after considering the same argument, that are canvassed before us has observed thus :
"6. The submission canvased on behalf of the petitioners that non-providence of consistent in minimum standard of 40% in the written examination was violative of Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution, could not be countenanced as the provisions of Articles 15 and 16 are only enabling provisions. The provision of fixing the minimum eligibility at a particular stage of selection to the services or posts could not be confused with the concept of reservation. The prescription of such nature to determine the minimum eligibility does not amount to reservation but it is a provision to screen the candidates to limit the number of entrants with an idea to maintain a particular level of efficiency and only such number of screened candidates would be entitled to participate in the further stages of the selection.Page 12 of 22 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 18 22:37:52 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1672/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025 undefined 6.1 Nor the providence of 40% marks for all categories at the written examination level was a cut-off level. The cut-off marks could be one which is scored by the last candidate in the list prepared for the eligible candidates at the end of both the examinations. While the advertisement contemplated calling the candidates three times the posts advertised in each category, since very less number of candidates could attain the minimum eligibility standard of 40% at the competitive written examination level, the ratio of calling the candidates three times in number could not be obviously observed.
7. Article 16 of the Constitution does not envisage any right in the nature of fundamental right to be appointed. It merely provides that for a right to be considered. The prescription of minimum eligibility to screen the candidates at a particular level of the recruitment process cannot be said to be inconsistent, incongruent or in any way contrary to the tenets of Article 16 of the Constitution. It was held and observed in Baloji Badhavath (supra) as under.
"The Constitution of India lays down
provisions both for protective
discrimination as also affirmative action. Reservation of posts for the disadvantaged Page 13 of 22 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 18 22:37:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1672/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025 undefined class of people as also seats in educational institutions are provided for by reason of Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Reservation made for the members of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes would, however, is subject to Article 335 of the Constitution of India. Concededly, no citizen of India can claim reservation as a matter of right. The provisions contained in Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India are merely enabling provisions. No writ of or in the nature of mandamus, thus, could be issued. [See C.A. Rajendran v. Union of India [(1968) 1 SCR 721, at pp. 731-33], Indra Sawhney v. Union of India [1992 Supp (3) SCC 217, paras 165 to 169, 428 to 432, 741 and 742], Ajit Singh (II) v. State of Punjab [(1999) 7 SCC 209, paras 32 to 38] and State of Punjab v. Manjit Singh [(2003) 11 SCC 559, paras 7 and 12]." (Para 18)
8. When the petitioners sought to press into service communication dated 29th September, 2015 addressed by the General Administration Department to the Gujarat Subordinate Services Selection Board, the reliance was based on misreading of the said communication. The Page 14 of 22 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 18 22:37:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1672/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025 undefined communication, on the contrary, provided that it was permissible for the Service Selection Board to determine the merit standard with reference to the number of posts advertised. It was categorically stated at the same time that merit standard below 40% shall not be fixed for any category. It then provided that for the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and Socially & Educationally Backward Class categories, it would be permissible to prescribe 10% less merit standard compared to determine for the General category. It could be countenanced that the communication on the contrary mentioned uncompromisable 40% standard for all categories. Even otherwise and even reading it in the manner in which the petitioners want to read, the contemplation in the said communication is not a mandating provision, but only an enabling. The decision in Komal Manubhai Katara (supra) does not apply in the facts of this case. It had altogether a different context.
9. When the scheme of recruitment provided a condition of 40% passing standard to be reached by the candidates in the competitive written examination as a pre-condition for being able to take the next stage examination of Computer Proficiency test and to further participate in the process of selection, it was a prescription of minimum eligibility. The Page 15 of 22 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 18 22:37:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1672/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025 undefined competitive written examination, attached with above minimum eligibility criteria for passing, was with an intent to filter the candidates. It could be viewed as a screening test to ensure the basic standard of eligibility is maintained and enforced. It is always permissible for the employer to provide and apply the minimum eligibility standard at the entry stage of the process. The standard eligibility fixed at 40% for the written examination was applied uniformly to the candidates of all the categories, whether general or reserved categories. It did not in any way militate against reservation policy, nor did it offend rights of the reserved category candidates to reap the benefit of reservation.
10. It was entirely permissible within the purview of law for the respondent - Selection Board to provide a methodology to prescribe minimum eligibility criteria at the first level examination and determine the merit of the candidates for their entry in the next stages of the process. How the Selection Board would judge the merit of the candidates is the function of the Selection Board. The prescription of minimum eligibility of 40% for the competitive written examination was eminently a rational prescription in eye of law. The procedure adopted by the Selection Board could hardly be said to be arbitrary or against the Page 16 of 22 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 18 22:37:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1672/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025 undefined principles of fair play. Such procedure was neither violative of Article 14 nor offended Article 16 of the Constitution."
7. We are in total agreement with the observations made by the learned Single Judge. The recommendations that are made in the minutes of the meeting which are relied upon by the learned advocate for the appellants and the recommendations/ instructions given by the G.A.D. are not in form of rules and minimum eligibility standard of 40% for the post of Live Stock Inspector Assistant cannot be termed as arbitrary or discriminatory in any manner. The advertisement in question as observed hereinabove clearly prescribes for minimum eligibility of 40% for the competitive written examination and has rightly observed by the learned Single Judge, the same is eminent and rational prescriptions in the eye of law. The recruiting agency has followed the prescribed law and has not changed the game in between, as from the beginning in the advertisement itself minimum marks proscribes for all categories is 40%. We do not find any case to tinker with such eligibility criteria prescribed by an expert body by way of judicial review in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Clause-15 of the Letters Patent. The appeal being bereft of any merits, the same deserves to be dismissed. The appeal is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs."
Page 17 of 22 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 18 22:37:52 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1672/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025 undefined 5.4 The State Government vide its Circulars / Resolutions / Communications/ Letters, etc., has decided the process / procedures / policies for various recruitment, including the recruitment in question, time and again. The respondent authorities have followed the guidelines and procedure prescribed by the State. To maintain the efficiency of administration in connection with the affairs of the State, the respondent authorities have taken into consideration the claims of the members of the Reserved Categories, as the case may be. Therefore, it is the right of the respondent authorities to prescribe their norms independently, by taking into consideration the claims of the members of the Reserved Categories, as the case may be, as well as considering the various G.R.s/Circulars/Communications/Letters, in connection with the affairs of the State. Article 335 of the Constitution of India refers the same, which is as under :
"Article 335. The claims of the members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes shall be taken into consideration, consistently with the maintenance of efficiency of administration, in the making of appointments to services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State."Page 18 of 22 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 18 22:37:52 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1672/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025 undefined 5.5 There is no dispute that the petitioners have secured less than 40% marks as prescribed in the advertisement. The petitioners have full knowledge about the minimum marks as well as procedure to be adopted by the respondent authorities while filling up the candidature forms. They have successfully filled up their forms at the relvant time and therefore, they were called upon by the respondent authorities for first stage of the recruitment process i.e. written test. Further, a minimum requirement of 40% marks is not the cut-off marks. Insofar as the cut off marks pursuant to the present petitions are concerned, the same are considered as the marked obtained by the last candidate eligible to appear for the second stage test, meaning thereby, the last candidate after calling three times the total categorywise post advertised in each category. 5.6 The petitioners are the disabled persons having 40% disability of low vision. They are claiming relaxation in passing marks which is prescribed by the respondent authorities. Under the circumstances, it would be fruitful to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.2 of 2024 in Re : Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services and cognate matters reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 481 decided on 03.03.2025. Page 19 of 22 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 18 22:37:52 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1672/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025 undefined The relevant observations made by the Hon'ble Apex are that mere existence of vacancies cannot be a ground to claim relaxation in marks. Laying down a minimum cutoff for interview is legally permissible. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that it may be permissible for the Government to prescribe a reasonably lower standard for Scheduled Casts / Scheduled Tribes / Backward Classes - consistent with the requirements of efficiency of administration - it would not be permissible not to prescribe any such minimum standard at all. While prescribing the lower minimum standard for reserved category, the nature of duties attached to the post and the interest of the general public should also be kept in mind. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in Para : 50 as under :
"50. Merely by the fact that some more posts were advertised and they are lying vacant, it could not have been a ground to relax the minimum marks for interview after the interview has already been held. It would not have been appropriate to do so and the High Court has objected to relaxation of minimum passing marks in viva voce examination in its reply and as the power to relax is to be exercised by the High Court and since it has opposed such a prayer on Page 20 of 22 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 18 22:37:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1672/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025 undefined reasonable ground and the institutional objective behind such prescription, we are not inclined to direct the High Court to relax the minimum marks."
6. In view of above facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in mind the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Division Bench of this Court, this Court finds that these petitions are devoid of merit. The petitioners have no right to challenge the procedure once they have adopted it. In the present case, the petitioners have complete knowledge about the norms / rules / procedure of the recruitment process. It is not that the respondent authorities have changed the rules of game midway of the recruitment process. The petitioners are misreading the instructions and seeking relaxation in qualifying marks below the minimum 40% marks, which is not permissible. Therefore, the petitioners have no right to challenge the same at later stage, that too when they declared unsuccessful in the process. These petitions therefore need to be dismissed.
7. Under the circumstances, these petitions are dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief granted by this, if any, stands vacated.
Page 21 of 22 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 18 22:37:52 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1672/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025 undefined
8. In view of dismissal of main petition, interim applications would not survive and are disposed of accordingly.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J) M.H. DAVE Page 22 of 22 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 18 22:37:52 IST 2025