Gujarat High Court
Keyur Niranjanbhai Patel vs Gujarat Public Service Commission & ... on 28 December, 2017
Author: Vipul M. Pancholi
Bench: R.Subhash Reddy, Vipul M. Pancholi
C/MCA/1206/2017 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR DIRECTION) NO. 1206 of 2017
In LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1103 of 2015
In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1100 of 2015
==========================================================
KEYUR NIRANJANBHAI PATEL....Applicant(s)
Versus
GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION & 12....Opponent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR RITURAJ M MEENA, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS DIMPLE A THAKER, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR KM ANTANI, AGP for the Opponent(s) No. 3
MR DG SHUKLA, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s) No. 1
MR PRABHAKAR UPADYAY, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. R.SUBHASH REDDY
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
Date : 28/12/2017
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI)
1. This application is filed with the prayers, which read as under:
"A. Your Lordships may be pleased to admit and allow the present application;
B. Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the Respondent No.1 to forward the name of the applicant to government for appropriate consideration and for offering appointment in accordance with law as the Letters Patent Appeal no.1103 of 2015 is allowed vide order dated 15.03.2017;
C. Any other reliefs as may be deemed fit, just and proper may be please be Page 1 of 8 HC-NIC Page 1 of 8 Created On Fri Dec 29 02:17:33 IST 2017 C/MCA/1206/2017 ORDER granted."
2. During the course of hearing of this application, learned advocate for the applicant has placed on record Draft Amendment dated 22.12.2017, by which, the applicant sought permission of this Court to join other candidates as applicants in the present application. Draft Amendment is allowed. The applicant to carry out the amendment in terms of the Draft forthwith.
3. It is the case of the applicants that the Respondent - Gujarat Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the 'GPSC') has issued public advertisement dated 01.03.2010 and corrigendum thereafter for 47 posts of Assistant Conservator of Forests (Class-II) and 120 posts of Range Forest Officer (Class-II). The GPSC had conducted preliminary test and thereafter main written examination was held in the year 2013. The result of the main written examination was declared in May 2014 and thereafter physical and endurance test and personal interviews were held during June and July, 2014. Initially, GPSC declared the result of the competitive examination for the aforesaid posts and published select list vide notification dated 25.09.2014. However, the result declared on 25.09.2014 was not prepared as per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Ramesh Ram, reported in (2010) 7 SCC
234. The applicants, therefore, preferred Special Page 2 of 8 HC-NIC Page 2 of 8 Created On Fri Dec 29 02:17:33 IST 2017 C/MCA/1206/2017 ORDER Civil Application No.15805 of 2014. However, during the pendency of the said petition, revised list was prepared by the respondent GPSC, after considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Ram (supra). Such revised select list was published on 23.01.2015.
4. It is further the case of the applicants that some of the candidates whose names appeared in the first list dated 25.09.2014 filed Special Civil Application No.1100 of 2015 which was partly allowed by this Court by an order dated 11.06.2015. However, the respondent GPSC challenged the said decision by filing Letters Patent Appeal Nos.1103 and 1104 of 2015. The Division Bench of this Court, by an order dated 15.03.2017, allowed the said appeals.
5. The applicants have raised the grievance that though the names of the applicants have been appeared in the list of successful candidates in the revised list published on 23.01.2015, the respondent GPSC has not recommended the names of the applicants to the Government for appointment on the posts in question. It is pointed out that number of candidates who have secured more than cut off marks and whose names appeared in both the lists, filed different applications before this Court and this Court by way of different orders directed the respondent GPSC to forward such names of the candidates to the Government Page 3 of 8 HC-NIC Page 3 of 8 Created On Fri Dec 29 02:17:33 IST 2017 C/MCA/1206/2017 ORDER for the purpose of appointment on certain conditions. The applicants have, therefore, prayed that necessary directions be issued to the respondent GPSC to forward the names of the applicants to the Government for offering appointment in accordance with law.
6. Heard learned advocate Ms. Dimple A. Thaker for the applicants, learned advocate Mr. D. G. Shukla for respondent No.1 - GPSC and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. K. M. Antani for respondent No.3.
7. Learned advocate for the applicant mainly contended that though the respondent - GPSC has declared the result by issuing notification dated 25.09.2014, the said list was revised and new notification was issued on 23.01.2015 keeping in view the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Ram (supra). The names of the applicants appear in the revised list. In spite of that the respondent - GPSC has not forwarded the names of the applicants to the Government for the purpose of appointment. It is submitted that now the Division Bench of this Court has allowed the Letters Patent Appeals filed by the respondent - GPSC by an order dated 15.03.2017. However, the respondent GPSC has not take any further steps by forwarding the names of the applicants to the Government for the posts in question. It is pointed out by learned advocate Page 4 of 8 HC-NIC Page 4 of 8 Created On Fri Dec 29 02:17:33 IST 2017 C/MCA/1206/2017 ORDER for the applicants from the document produced on page 51 of the compilation that the cut off marks as per the revised select list published on 23.01.2015 is 426 for General (Male) category candidate, whereas the cut off marks for General (Female) category candidate is 386 and SEBC (Female) candidate is 344. It is pointed out that all the applicants are having more than cut off marks. Learned advocate thereafter referred to the order passed by this Court in various Civil Applications (For Direction) filed by the concerned candidates, the copy of the same are produced from page 52 to 65 of the compilation. It is contended that out of 167 posts advertised, names of 160 candidates were recommended by the GPSC to the respondent State Government pursuant to the interim orders passed by this Court subject to outcome of the Letters Patent Appeals. It is submitted that now the Letters Patent Appeals filed by the respondent GPSC are allowed and therefore reliefs prayed for in this application be granted.
8. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. D. G. Shukla appearing for the respondent GPSC is not in a position to dispute the fact that the select list published on 25.09.2014 has been revised by the GPSC on 23.01.2015. As per the revised merit list, the cut off marks for General (Male) category candidate is 426, whereas for General (Female) category candidate is 386 and SEBC Page 5 of 8 HC-NIC Page 5 of 8 Created On Fri Dec 29 02:17:33 IST 2017 C/MCA/1206/2017 ORDER (Female) category candidate is 344. The applicants are having more than cut off marks. Learned advocate Mr. Shukla has also referred to the averments made in the affidavit-in-reply in which it has been stated that by way of interim orders passed by this Court during the pendency of the Letters Patent Appeals, for 167 posts advertised, names of 160 candidates have been recommended by the respondent GPSC to the State Government for offering them appointment subject to the outcome of the Letters Patent Appeals.
9. In view of the aforesaid submissions canvassed on behalf of learned advocates appearing for the parties and from the material produced on record, it is revealed that respondent GPSC issued public advertisement on 01.03.2010 and corrigendum was also issued for 47 posts of Assistant Conservator of Forests (Class II) and 120 posts of Range Forest Officer (Class II). After conducting the necessary examinations and personal interview, the respondent GPSC published merit-list dated 25.09.2014. However, as the said list was not as per the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Ram (supra), the respondent GPSC thought it fit to publish revised merit-list on 23.01.2015. It is not in dispute that names of the applicants appear in the revised merit list published by GPSC. It is further revealed that some of the candidates whose names appeared in Page 6 of 8 HC-NIC Page 6 of 8 Created On Fri Dec 29 02:17:33 IST 2017 C/MCA/1206/2017 ORDER the first merit list challenged the action of GPSC by filing Special Civil Application No.1100 of 2015. The said petition was partly allowed vide order dated 11.06.2015. The respondent GPSC challenged the said order by filing Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 1103 of 2015 and 1104 of 2015. The said Letters Patent Appeals filed by the respondent GPSC are allowed by the Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 15.03.2017. During the pendency of the said Letters Patent Appeals, different candidates filed Civil Applications for directions on the ground that such applicants are having more than cut off marks and are finding place in both the lists and therefore the respondent GPSC be directed to recommend their names to the State Government for consideration and for appointment. From the material produced on record, it is revealed that this Court by different orders disposed of such civil applications on certain terms and conditions and accordingly as per the affidavit filed by the respondent GPSC, names of 160 candidates are already recommended to the State Government.
9. So far as the applicants are concerned, their names are reflected in the revised merit-list published on 23.01.2015 and they are having more than cut off marks in their respective categories. In that view of the matter, we are of the view that when the respondent GPSC has Page 7 of 8 HC-NIC Page 7 of 8 Created On Fri Dec 29 02:17:33 IST 2017 C/MCA/1206/2017 ORDER recommended the names of 160 candidates pursuant to the orders passed by this Court, few more names can be recommended as applicants are having more than cut off marks.
10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the respondent GPSC is directed to forward the names of the applicants for consideration and appointment to the State Government for the posts in question. However, the respondent GPSC as well as the State Government shall specifically mention in the appointment orders of the applicants that the appointment shall be subject to the final outcome of the Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 1105 of 2015 to 1111 of 2015, which are segregated from Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 1103 of 2015 and 1104 of 2015. The appointment shall not create any equity in favour of either of the parties.
11. With the aforesaid direction, the application is disposed of.
(R. SUBHASH REDDY, CJ) (VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.) Jani Page 8 of 8 HC-NIC Page 8 of 8 Created On Fri Dec 29 02:17:33 IST 2017