Gujarat High Court
Priyanka Amrutbhai Patel vs Gujarat Subordinate Services ... on 18 January, 2018
Author: N.V.Anjaria
Bench: N.V.Anjaria
C/SCA/496/2018 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 496 of 2018
==========================================================
PRIYANKA AMRUTBHAI PATEL....Petitioner(s)
Versus
GUJARAT SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION BOARD &
1....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR TR MISHRA, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR RASESH RINDANI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 2
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - 2
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
Date : 18/01/2018
ORAL ORDER
Heard learned advocate Mr.T.R. Mishra for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Rasesh Rindani for respondent No.2 who appears on service of notice although without any reply affidavit having been filed so far.
2. The petitioner aspires to be appointed to the post of Agricultural Assistant, Class III. In the recruitment process, petitioner appeared in the written examination held on 09th September, 2017 in which she has secured 58.5 marks which constituted 39%. The cut-off and passing standard is 40% and petitioner falls short of the said passing standard, therefore she is not called for second stage Page 1 of 3 HC-NIC Page 1 of 3 Created On Thu Jan 18 23:38:48 IST 2018 C/SCA/496/2018 ORDER examination of Computer Proficiency as per her case.
3. The petitioner belongs to SEBC Female category. The contention coming-forth on part of the petitioner is that the cut-off line is kept uniform for all the categories. It is contended that when petitioner belongs to reserved category, there should be different cut-off line than described for the general category candidates.
4. What is pressed by learned advocate for the petitioner is that Computer Proficiency Test to commence on 22nd January, 2018 and if the petitioner is not permitted to appear in the said test, she may lose for her case at the outset, it being tried on merits. On the other hand, it is not possible to express any final opinion on the contention of the petitioner in absence of reply on behalf of the authorities on record.
5. Without going into any aspect and merits of the case of the petitioner and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case of the petitioner, it is directed that petitioner shall be allowed to appear in the Compute Proficiency Test, which is the second stage in the examination. The respondent authorities shall permit the petitioner to appear in the Computer Proficiency Test, however result of the petitioner shall not be declared and shall be kept in sealed cover and produce the same on the record of this Court.
6. However, it is clarified that permission as Page 2 of 3 HC-NIC Page 2 of 3 Created On Thu Jan 18 23:38:48 IST 2018 C/SCA/496/2018 ORDER granted above, shall not create any right or equity in favour of the petitioner. This is only to ensure that the petition does not become infructuous at the threshold.
7. With the aforesaid ad-interim relief granted, it is directed that the respondent authorities shall file their reply before the next date.
Stand over to 30th January, 2018.
Direct service is permitted, today.
(N.V.ANJARIA, J.) Anup Page 3 of 3 HC-NIC Page 3 of 3 Created On Thu Jan 18 23:38:48 IST 2018