Document Fragment View
Matching Fragments
The relevant factual background is that the GPSC published Advertisement No.186 dated 16.02.2010, calling for applications from eligible candidates to fill up the posts of Lecturers in Government Engineering Colleges and Polytechnics in the State of Gujarat. The petitioner, who was appointed as lecturer (Mechanical Engineering) on ad hoc basis vide order dated 28.01.2009, applied pursuant to the same. Earlier, the petitioner, along with others, had filed a petition, being Special Civil Application No.4651 of 2010, seeking a direction that his services be not terminated. This was done in view of the fact that the appointment of the petitioner was for a term of 11 months, or till he is replaced by a regularly selected candidate by the GPSC. The said petition was rejected vide order dated 19.04.2010, of the learned Single Judge. The appeal, being Letters Patent Appeal No.991 of 2010, as filed by the petitioner and others, was disposed of on 30.04.3020, on a statement made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, that the services of the appellants would not be terminated till the regular process of recruitment for filling up the posts of Lecturers is completed and regularly selected candidates are available for appointment. In this scenario, the petitioner applied pursuant to the above-mentioned advertisement published by the GPSC. The requisite qualification and eligibility criteria for the post of Lecturer in the discipline of Mechanical Engineering, as stated in the advertisement, is that the candidate should possess a First Class Master's Degree in the appropriate branch of Engineering/ Technology or, alternatively, he should possess a First Class Bachelor's Degree in the appropriate branch of Engineering/ Technology with a valid GATE score of 75 percentile. Admittedly, the petitioner does not hold a 1st Class Master's Degree in Engineering (ME). The case of the petitioner is that, though he has appeared in the GATE examination, the Scorecard does not mention the percentile score as this was not calculated by the concerned Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) in the GATE 2010 examination, though the percentile score had been calculated in the previous year, 2009. According to the petitioner, as the percentile marks have not been provided in GATE 2010, it could not have been calculated from the details available in GATE 2010 by the GPSC, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner has not scored 75 percentile, and is ineligible, therefore, his candidature cannot be rejected on this ground. Hence, the petition.
It is, therefore, prayed that the petition be allowed and respondent-GPSC be directed to call the petitioner for interview, forthwith.
The petition has been strongly resisted by both, the respondent No.1 - State Government and respondent No.2 - GPSC.
Mr.Maulik G.Nanavati, learned, Assistant Government Pleader, has contended that the State Government has accorded sanction to the proposal of the GPSC that the GATE percentile be permitted to be calculated as per the formula adopted in GATE 2009, since no percentile marks have been calculated in GATE 2010. In this regard, letter dated 01.06.2010 has been addressed by the Principal Secretary, Education, to the Secretary, GPSC and the GPSC has calculated the percentile marks accordingly.
Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties at length, and on perusal of the material on record, it emerges that the only question in issue is that the petitioner has been excluded from appearing in the interview as he has not scored 75 percentile marks. As per the eligibility criteria advertised, the candidate should possess a First Class Master's Degree or a First Class Bachelor's Degree with a valid GATE score of 75% percentile. The petitioner does not possess a Master's Degree in Engineering and has a Bachelor's Degree, therefore, as per the Recruitment Rules and the advertisement, he would have to possess minimum 75 percentile in GATE 2010 to be eligible for the post in question. The issue has arisen because the percentile marks have not been provided in the GATE 2010 Scorecard, though they had been provided in the previous year, that is, GATE 2009. The GPSC approached Proffesor Chitralekha Mahanta, Organizing Chairperson, GATE 2010, IIT (Guwahati), vide letter dated 20.04.2010, seeking information regarding calculation of percentile for the GATE 2010 examination, held in February 2010. By letter dated 27.04.2010, GPSC was informed that "Percentile mark is not provided in GATE 2010. As such, percentile cannot be calculated from details provided in GATE 2010. Your organization will have to use other details of GATE 2010 for your recruitment purpose". Much emphasis has been laid by the learned advocate for the petitioner on this letter by contending that the percentile cannot be calculated from the details provided in GATE 2010. However, this letter has to be read as a whole and it is clearly stipulated therein that the GPSC will have to use other details of GATE 2010 for the purpose of recruitment. The GPSC approached the State Government vide letter dated 27.05.2010, informing it of the above-mentioned communication and suggesting that the percentile be calculated on the basis of the formula adopted in GATE 2009. This suggestion of the GPSC found concurrence with the State Government, as is evident from letter dated 01.06.2010 of the Principal Secretary, Education Department. Accordingly, the GPSC went ahead and calculated the percentile marks by adopting the formula used in GATE 2009. The formula adopted for calculation of the percentile marks, as stated in the affidavit-in-reply filed by the GPSC is as follows:
59338
- 15749 x 100 / 59338 = 73.45 percentile It is not the case of the petitioner that there is any error in the calculation made as per the formula but only that there were no details available with the GPSC to arrive at the percentile marks. The petitioner does not possess 75 percentile marks as per the formula adopted by the GPSC, therefore, as he does not possess the requisite eligibility criteria, no illegality has been committed by the GPSC in rejecting his candidature. The advertisement was published on 16.02.2010, much before the result of the GATE 2010 examination was declared, and it was only after the declaration of the result that it was found that in the GATE 2010 examination, the percentile score had not been calculated. As the Recruitment Rules and advertisement stipulated the eligibility criteria of minimum 75 percentile in GATE for the candidates possessing First Class Bachelor's Degree, the GPSC, with the concurrence of the State Government, proceeded to calculate the percentile by adopting the formula used in the GATE 2010 examination. On the facts and in circumstances mentioned above, in the view of this Court, no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the GPSC or the State Government in doing so. It has been submitted on behalf of the GPSC that about 22,000 applications were received. In all cases, the same formula has been uniformly applied to arrive at the percentile marks and there has been no complaint regarding the same. The GPSC is a recruiting agency and is within its rights to decide the nature of the qualifications required for the post in question as also to scrutinize and decide whether the candidate in question meets the eligibility criteria, or not. In the present case, there is no legal infirmity in the action of the GPSC in calculating the percentile marks by adopting the formula used in GATE 2009. Had this not been done, the entire recruitment procedure pursuant to GATE 2010 would have been stalled for the reason that no percentile marks had been calculated. The calculation has been made using the details available in the GATE 2010 Scorecard itself, therefore, the assertion of the learned advocate for the petitioner that there was no data available to make calculations and the calculation made on the basis of insufficient-data is incorrect, and cannot be countenanced. From the formula adopted by the GPSC, it is clear that all details used are available on the Scorecard of GATE itself, therefore there can be no question of error due to insufficient data, as alleged.