Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9.1 As per the principles to apply to horizontal reservation and as per the contemplation in Resolution dated 01st August, 2018 which reflects the correct principle, in the SEBC Female Category, 10 seats were reserved. 06 SECB candidates at Serial Nos.43, 46, 71, 78, 82 and 83 were available against the 10 seats. Consequently, 04 more SEBC women candidates were needed. In other words, in order to meet the shortfall, only 04 female candidates were required to be picked up. However respondent GPSC selected 10 more female candidates at Serial Nos.84, 86, 88, 91, 92, 96, 98, 99, 100 and 101. What was done by GPSC was incorrect for applying the horizontal reservation. The course adopted was illegally impermissible. The petitioners' contention has to be accepted that 06 SEBC Female candidates at Serial Nos.92, 96, 98, 99, 100 and 101 should have been taken out from the list of 115 candidates prepared and declared by GPSC on 14.09.2018, so as to pave way for inclusion of the respective petitioners.

20. Mr. Trivedi further submitted that at the relevant time when the proceedings were going on before the learned Single Judge, the GPSC had recommended to the State Government 108 candidates out of the select list of 115 in such a manner that they may not be affected by any outcome of the pending proceedings before the learned Single Judge, and consequently, the appointment orders were issued to the said 108 candidates. Mr. Trivedi would submit that in the event this Court quashes and set asides the Government Resolution dated 01.08.2018, the State Government may have to give appointments to the remaining seven candidates out of the select list of the GPSC dated 18.09.2018 of 115 candidates and, thereafter, with a view to put an end to the entire controversy as regards the recruitment of female candidates of respective categories by way of implementation of horizontal reservation, the State would do the needful for creation of, in all, seven supernumerary posts as a special case only for accommodating the general female candidates who are to be recommended by the GPSC as per their respective placement in the original select list.

(c) In other words, according to the said petitioner, in view of the availability of 6 SEBC female candidates as mentioned above, GPSC should have taken into account only 4 more SEBC female candidates at serial Nos. 84, 86, 88 and 91 to meet with the shortfall.

(d) In view of the above, the abovenamed petitioner's contention was to the effect that 6 SEBC female candidates at Sr. Nos. 92, 96, 98, 99, 100 and 101 should have been taken out from the list of 115 candidates prepared and declared by GPSC on 18.09.2018, which would pave way for inclusion of the petitioner.

4. As against the above, it is stated that the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein (i.e. original Petitioner Nos.1 to 3) are female candidates belonging to Open / General category namely, (i) Ms. Shital Amrutlal Nishar, having obtained 354 marks and whose name appeared at Sr.No.35 in the list of unsuccessful candidates; (ii) Ms. Bhoomika Tulsibhai Akbari, having obtained 348 marks and whose name appeared at Sr.No.6 in the list of unsuccessful candidates; and (iii) Ms. Hardi Jayantibhai Patel, having obtained 346.50 marks and whose name appeared at Sr.No.64 in the list of unsuccessful candidates. According to them, as per Clause 12 of the GR dated 01.08.2018, any female candidate belonging to any reserved category, if selected on her own merit, would be treated as a general category candidate, and would be treated as female representative of the reserved category, for the purpose of Horizontal Reservation. In view of the above, according to the original Petitioners, against 10 seats reserved for SEBC female candidates, there were 6 SEBC female candidates at Sr. Nos. 43, 46, 71, 78, 82 and 83 and hence, there was a need for only 4 more SEBC female candidates, but GPSC selected 10 more SEBC female candidates at Sr. Nos. 84, 86, 88, 91, 92, 96, 98, 99, 100 and 101, which is not legally correct. Likewise, according to the original Petitioners, against 02 seats reserved for SC female candidates, there was 01 SC female candidate at Sr. No. 79, and hence there was a need for only 01 more SC female candidate, but GPSC selected 02 more SC female candidates at Sr. Nos. 85 and 87, which is not legally correct. Thus, the original Petitioners wanted that 3 SEBC female candidates at Sr. Nos. 98, 99, 100 and 3 General C/LPA/1910/2019 JUDGMENT male candidates at Sr. Nos. 41, 42 and 48, should have been taken out from the list of 115 candidates prepared and declared by GPSC on 18.09.2018, which would pave way for their inclusion.