Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. In order to consider and decide diverse contentions, it is necessary and appropriate to take into account the factual backdrop which can be summarized thus:-

4.1 The dispute raised in this group of petitions is related to and arises from the selection and recruitment process for appointment of Assistant Conservator of Forest ("ACF" for short) and Range Forest Officer ("RFO" for short).

4.2 The respondent No.1 State forwarded requisition to the respondent GPSC to initiate and complete the process of selection for filling up 47 vacancies for post of ACF and 120 vacancies for the post of RFO. In pursuance of the said requisition, the respondent GPSC initiated the said process by publishing an advertisement dated 1.3.2010 (followed by a corrigendum), the respondent GPSC invited applications for appointment of 47 ACFs (Class-II) and 120 RFOs (Class-II).

11.1 So far as Special Civil Application No.14330 of 2014 is concerned, two petitioners therein belong to SEBC category, one petitioner belongs to ST category, whereas the fourth petitioner belongs to General/Unreserved category. The petitioner in Special Civil Application No.14331 of 2014 is from general/unreserved category. Likewise, the petitioner in Special Civil Application No.16220 of 2014 also belongs to unreserved/general category. Learned counsel has clarified that so far as the petitioners in Special Civil Application No.14330 of 2014 and Special Civil Application No.16220/2014 are concerned, they are unsuccessful candidates, whereas the petitioner in Special Civil Application No.14331 of 2014 is a successful/selected candidate who is aggrieved by the decision of assigning her to the post of RFO. While challenging the actions of respondent GPSC, the learned senior counsel Mr.Oza with Ms.Thula, learned advocate for the said petitioners submitted, inter alia, that as against 51 reserved posts for female candidates only 30 female candidates have been appointed which is contrary to the rules prescribing 30% compartmentalized reservation for female candidates. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the respondent commission had never mentioned and declared that only those female candidates who come within the purview of 10% relaxation in the qualifying standard prescribed for male candidates in respective category will be selected. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that prescribing such bench mark for female candidates is against the right conferred in favour of female candidates by virtue of the said rules. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the respondent commission is only recommendatory body who is authorized to conduct examination and complete the selection process but it has no right to make any policy decision and the respondent commission must select and recommend candidates in accordance with rules without applying any policy framed by it which does not have any sanction and approval by the respondent State. According to learned Senior Counsel, respondent GPSC has no authority to prescribe additional requirement either as regards eligibility or as to the suitability. He further submitted that, the Public Service Commission cannot prescribe Minimum qualifying marks in absence of a provision in the Statutory rules and that taking into account marks of only male candidates as the cut-off marks or benchmark and then allowing 10% relaxation for filling-up reserved quota for women is a procedure which is not only arbitrary but strikes at the core of basic fundamental rights of the female candidates. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners in Special Civil Application No.14330 of 2014 submitted that any female candidate who fulfills the eligibility criteria prescribed by the rules and declared in the advertisement can not be turned down so long as the vacancy is available i.e. so long as all vacancies declared in the advertisement are not filled up.

15.3 Having regard to the provisions under the applicable rules and the explanation by respondent GPSC, the grievance raised by the said successful candidate / petitioner (in Special Civil Application No.15057 of 2014) on the ground that the notification dated 25.9.2014 is bad in law because waiting list is not prepared and not notified, is not sustainable.

16. As mentioned earlier, the selection, recruitment and appointment to both the posts are governed by the above-mentioned rules which are framed in exercise of powers under Article 309 of the Constitution. The respondent GPSC commenced the selection process after receiving requisition from the respondent State. After completing the process, the respondent GPSC prepared final selection list and notified the same by virtue of notification dated 25.9.2014 which is challenged on diverse grounds. For sake of convenience, the grounds of challenge raised by the petitioners can be broadly classified under four heads, as follows:-