Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

- Gujarat Public Service Commission ("GPSC" for short) issued advertisement No.209/09-10 dated 01.03.2010, inviting applications for the posts of Assistant Conservator of Forests, Class-II and Range Forest Officer, Class-II. Forty seven vacant posts were advertised in the cadre of ACF and 120 in that of RFO. The total number of vacancies advertised are, thus, 167. According to the petitioners, they are eligible and qualified for the said posts and have applied in response to the said advertisement. The GPSC issued letters dated 05.05.2010 to the petitioners, permitting them to appear in the Preliminary Examination held on 30.05.2010. The result of the Preliminary Examination was declared on 07.08.2010, and the petitioners have been included in the list of 2842 successful candidates. Having been declared successful in the Preliminary Examination, the petitioners were to appear in the Main Examination. It is the case of the petitioners that after the result of the Preliminary Examination was declared, they orally learnt from the respondents that candidates possessing the degree of B.Sc. with Microbiology as a special/ principal subject were not going to be considered as being eligible for the Main Examination. The petitioner No.1, therefore, asked for specific information in this regard, under the Right to Information Act, 2005, by letter date 21.10.2010. Vide communication dated 19.11.2010, the GPSC has replied that B.Sc. Microbiology has not been included in the subjects of Bachelor of Science in the Recruitment Rules, and the State Government has not issued any Notification treating B.Sc. (Microbiology) as an equivalent qualification. In the meantime, petitioner No.1 had addressed a detailed representation dated 23.10.2010 to the Hon'ble Chief Minister in this regard, with a copy to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (respondent No.2), being the head of the respondent-Department. After receipt thereof, respondent No.2 addressed letter dated 10.11.2010 to the State Government, wherein it has been stated that all Graduates in Science with any special / principal subject should be permitted to appear in the Main Examination. It is further stated that the decision whether the subject of Microbiology should be considered as equivalent to the subjects stated in the Recruitment Rules, is to be taken by the State Government. Respondent No.2 has, however, expressed his opinion that the petitioners should be permitted to appear in the Main Examination. The grievance of the petitioners is that though they have graduated in the Science stream and have studied the subjects of Chemistry, Physics, Botany, and Zoology during their Graduation, with Microbiology as their special/ principal subject, and in spite of an explicit representation having been made in this regard, the State Government has not issued any clarification, Notification or instructions, treating Microbiology as an equivalent subject to the other subjects mentioned in the Recruitment Rules. According to the petitioners, they are likely to suffer serious prejudice as the GPSC shall proceed to hold the Main Examinations in which the petitioners would not be permitted to participate, therefore, they have approached this Court by preferring the present petition.

A similar stand is taken in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of GPSC by Shri Vinay Navnitlal Desai, Joint Secretary, GPSC, affirmed on 03.02.2011. The stand of the said respondent is that the petitioners do not possess the prescribed educational qualifications for recruitment to the posts of ACF and RFO, as specified in the Recruitment Rules and the advertisement. As regards equivalence of the subject of Microbiology with the subjects mentioned in the Rules, it is stated that no Notification has been issued by the State Government regarding the same.

(ii) That the advertisement issued by the GPSC clearly mentions that the candidates should possess a degree of Bachelor of Science in one of the subjects mentioned therein, which are the same subjects as provided for by the Rules. The petitioners were well aware even at the time of issuance of the advertisement regarding the essential qualifications. After receipt of applications, all candidates were permitted to appear in the Preliminary Test. GPSC received 15553 applications and about 8711 candidates appeared in the Preliminary Test. The result was declared on 07.08.2010 and 2848 candidates were declared to have passed the same. The petitioners have cleared the Preliminary Test. After verification of the applications, GPSC published the list of eligible candidates on 01.02.2011 and the list of ineligible candidates on 02.02.2011. The eligible candidates who have cleared the Preliminary Test will be required to appear in the main examination (written and interview test) which is to be held on 19.02.2011 and as the petitioners are ineligible, they are not entitled to appear for the said examination.

Therefore, on the plain reading of the main part of Rule 10, the age requirement is to be seen as 1-7-2004."

In view of the principles of law laid down in the above-mentioned judgment, the contention of the learned advocate for the GPSC, therefore, does not deserve acceptance.

The learned advocate for the GPSC has also placed reliance upon a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Hirenkumar V.Rupalia and others v. Gujarat Public Service Commission and Anr.

- Letters Patent Appeal No.2760 of 2010 in Special Civil Application No.10124 of 2010 decided on 12.01.2011, wherein, it is said that the nature of the qualification is to be decided by the recruiting agency and the Court would not substitute its own wisdom in place of the recruiting agency, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also stated in the said judgment that there may be a large number of candidates who might not have applied on account of not having the requisite qualification.