Kishor Nathabhai Dholakiya vs Gujarat Public Service Commission on 17 January, 2019

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Kishor Nathabhai Dholakiya vs Gujarat Public Service Commission on 17 January, 2019

Bench: N.V.Anjaria

         C/SCA/1274/2018                                      ORDER




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

           R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1274 of 2018
==========================================================
                   KISHOR NATHABHAI DHOLAKIYA
                              Versus
                GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ABHISHEK S CHOUDHURY(9598) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1
MR VAIBHAV A VYAS(2896) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1
MR KM ANTANI, ASST.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for RESPONDENT No. 2
MR MANISH J PATEL(2131) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED BY DS(5) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 2
==========================================================
 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA

                            Date : 17/01/2019
                             ORAL ORDER

The petitioner wanted himself to be considered for the post of Assistant Professor (College Branch), Gujarat Education Service, ClassII, for which respondent No.1 - Gujarat Public Service Commission issued an advertisement to conduct the recruitment process. It was for want of production of Creamy Layer Certificate at the particular stage, the petitioner was not allowed to participate in the process.

2. On 01.02.2018, while issuing notice, by way of adinterim relief following order was passed, extracting the relevant part from the said order, "By way of interim relief, it is directed that the petitioner shall be permitted to appear in Page 1 of 3 C/SCA/1274/2018 ORDER the interview and shall be interviewed by the interview committee. The result of the petitioner shall be kept in a sealed cover to be produced in this proceedings to be subjected to passing of further orders. It is, however, clarified that factum of petitioner's appearance in the interview, shall not create any right or equity in favour of the petitioner."

3. Pursuant to the above interim relief, the petitioner was permitted to appear in the interview and was interviewed. The result was produced before the Court and sealed cover containing the result was opened. It was learnt that the petitioner had failed in the interview.

4. Respondent No.1 - GPSC has filed additional affidavitinreply dated 06.09.2018, placing on record this factum. In the additional affidavitin reply, it was inter alia stated as under, "4. Thus, thereafter the petitioner appeared for personal interview and as soon as the same was over the statements of marks awarded to the petitioner by the interview committee was immediately kept in seal cover, so as to make sure that there are no allegations of discrimination or unjustness been made against the answering respondent by the petitioner.

5. Thereafter the answering respondent to file affidavit thereby explaining the detail breakup of the marks obtain by the petitioner as well as the final result of the petitioner herein. Thus the answering respondent herein gives the break up of the final result of petitioner as under:

Page 2 of 3 C/SCA/1274/2018 ORDER

No. Petitioner Category Marks Marks Total Qualifying Name obtained in obtained Marks Standard Preliminary in Viva (Marks) Test Voce fixed for SEBC Male Category 1 Shri SEBC 19.94 17 36.94 48.05 Kishor Nathabhai Dholakiya The petitioner belongs to SEBC category and minimum qualifying standard for SEBC male category is 48.05 marks. As petitioner has obtained 19.94 marks in preliminary test + 17.00 marks in interview = 36.94 final total marks as per provision 14(4)of the said advertisement.

The petitioner had applied in SEBC category and the Minimum Qualifying Standard for SEBC Male category is 48.05 marks. Petitioner has obtained total 36.94 marks i.e. less than the cutoff marks of SEBC category and also less than the candidate kept on waiting list for SEBC category, he is to be declared unsuccessful. Copy of the final result is marked as Annexure R1."

5. In view of above, as the petitioner has failed in the interview, no further prosecution of the petition is required. The petition stands disposed of as not surviving. Notice is discharged. Interim orders are vacated.

(N.V.ANJARIA, J) Gaurav+ Page 3 of 3

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Gujarat High Court