Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. Briefly stated, the relevant facts of the case are that, advertisement No.164/2006-07 dated 15.8.2006, was issued by respondent No.2 - Gujarat Public Service Commission ("GPSC", for short), inviting applications for the post of Deputy Director (Class-I), Tribal Development Department from amongst the candidates possessing the requisite eligibility criteria as stipulated. Two posts were advertised, out of which one post was reserved for a candidate belonging to the Schedule Caste Category and the other post was meant for a candidate belonging to the Unreserved (General) Category. The petitioner belongs to the Socially and Educationally Backward Class (S.E.B.C.) Category. He submitted his application, along with copies of certificates regarding his educational qualifications and other credentials, and was permitted to appear in the Preliminary Test conducted by respondent No.2, on 29.11.2008. The petitioner cleared the said Preliminary Test with the requisite qualifying norms but as, according to the GPSC, he did not possess the required experience for the post, he was not called for the personal interview which was to be held on 15.3.2011. The said decision was conveyed to the petitioner by the impugned communication dated 27.10.2010. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this petition.

5. The petition has been contested by Mr.D.G.Shukla, learned counsel for respondent No.2 by filing an affidavit-in-reply, and submitting that though the petitioner possesses the requisite educational qualifications, he does not possess the necessary experience as prescribed for the post in question as per the Deputy Director, Project Officer, Assistant Commissioner of Tribal Development, Vigilance Officer, District Backward Class Welfare Officer, Class-I Recruitment Rules, 2002 ("the Recruitment Rules", for short). It is further submitted that as per the certificates submitted by the petitioner, he had joined as Community Organizer with effect from 31.5.1996 with Aga Khan Rural Support Programme (India) and thereafter he was promoted to the post of Member Secretary with effect from 1.10.2004. The experience of the petitioner as Member Secretary was for the period from 1.10.2004 till 14.9.2006, that is, 1 year, 11 months and 14 days, whereas as per the Recruitment Rules and the stipulation in the advertisement, the candidate must possess the requisite experience of Social Work for a period of three years. As the petitioner does not possess the requisite experience in the field of Social Work, his candidature has been rejected. It is further urged that even if the case of the petitioner is considered in the pay scale upto two stages below the Class-II post, he does not fulfill the necessary criteria of experience in the field of Social Work, therefore, the decision of the respondent - GPSC is in conformity with the Rules and the stipulation in the advertisement, and may be held to be just, legal and proper. Lastly, it is contended that no legal or fundamental right of the petitioner has been infringed, therefore, the prayer made by him for issuance of writ of Mandamus may not be granted. In this regard, reliance has been placed on a decision of this Court in Jayantilal Dwarkadas Patel Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. reported in (1986) 1 GLR 254. On the strength of the above submissions, it is prayed that the petition be dismissed.

6. Mr.Maulik G. Nanavati, learned Assistant Government Pleader has submitted that the decision whether the petitioner fulfills the requisite qualifications regarding experience is to be taken by the GPSC, who has prescribed the said qualification on the basis of the Recruitment Rules. The decision of not calling the petitioner for the interview has been taken on the basis of certificates submitted by the petitioner and as those certificates do not disclose, upon a bare reading, that the petitioner possesses the necessary experience in the field of Social Work, for a period of three years. Therefore, no fault can be found in the decision of not calling him for the interview. It is further contended that in the absence of any allegation regarding malafides or procedural irregularity, this Court would not exercise the power of judicial review, to interfere in a decision taken as per Rules.

10. There does not appear to be any certificate on record stating that the petitioner has the requisite experience of three years in the field of Social Work. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the activities carried on by the petitioner are in the nature of social work, according to the GPSC this aspect is not evident from the documents supplied by the petitioner.

11. In the considered view of this Court, the very purpose and requirement of submission of certificates, credentials and documents is to enable the recruiting body, in this case the GPSC, to come to a conclusion regarding the eligibility of the candidate and to form an opinion on the basis of the same, whether the candidate possesses the eligibility criteria as prescribed by the Rules and as stipulated in the advertisement. What is not clearly stated in the documents and credentials of the petitioner cannot be inferred by the GPSC. For the purpose of evaluating whether the petitioner possesses three years' experience in the field of Social Work, he was required to submit documents that makes this aspect clear on bare perusal of the same. To infer, by a long drawn out process of reasoning and speculation whether the duties performed by the petitioner involve experience in the field of Social Work or not, would bring in an undesirable element of subjectivity, which is to be avoided in matters of public employment, through a process of direct selection. The GPSC, which is the recruiting body, has to maintain objectivity and impartiality in order to satisfy itself regarding the aspect whether the candidate fulfills all the necessary eligibility criteria prescribed by Rules, for the post. This can only be done by scrutiny of certificates, credentials and documents and only if it is found that the candidate fulfills all the necessary eligibility criteria for the post in question, is he to be called for the interview. The documents should speak for themselves and in this case, looking to the material on record, it cannot be said that the decision of the GPSC, debarring the petitioner from appearing in the interview, suffers from any illegality, irregularity or arbitrariness, so as to warrant interference from this Court in exercise of its power of judicial review.