Point of Law:
Usual procedure and for all the recruitments carried out by the Respondent Commission the same is uniformly followed and therefore the apprehension of the Petitioners is absolutely misplaced and the allegations of favoritism are mala fide.

JUDGMENT :

1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the prayer of the petitioner reads as under:

“6a Admit, hear and allow this petition.

(B) Quash and set aside result dated 10/5/2018 declared on the basis of marks allotted in oral interview.

(C) By way of interim relief your lordships may be pleased to grant status quo by restraining the respondent no.1 from executing, operation and implementation of the result sheet dated 10.05.2018 and all further orders arising therefrom qua 39 posts of Assistant Professor, Sanskrit.

(D) Your lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the oral interviews dated 16/04/2018 to 21/04/2018 and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to conduct fresh oral interviews as per reasonable, ethical, moral, fair and transparent standards and practices in accordance with the law and in the interest of justice.”

2. Facts in brief are as under:

2.1 Petitioners, three in number, appeared in the written test, as well as interview for selection to the post of Assistant Professor (Gujarat Educational Services, Class-II) in the subject of Sanskrit.

2.2 As advertisement for 39 posts was issued being advertisement no. 74. 2016-2017 dated 15.11.2016, the petitioners applied under the general category. The cut off marks for General Category, Male was 51.53 and Female was 50.44. The petitioners secured the following marks and ranks respectively:

2.3 The case of the petitioners is that they were aggrieved by the irrational marks alloted to the candidates at the interview. An RTI Application was made on 21.05.2018. The case of the petitioners is that there was arbitrariness and nepotism at the interview. The schedule of the interview was declared on 29.01.2018. As per advertisement, three times the number of candidates needed to be called, which would be 117, whereas 181 candidates were called for the interview.

3. Mr.Yatin N Oza, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Mr.Jit Patel, learned advocate for the petitioners, submitted that the process of selection was fraught with arbitrariness and nepotism. He supported his submission by drawing the Court’s attention to the following facts:-

(I) A letter dated 17/4/2018 was written to the Education Department pointing out that one Rajabhai Kathad was to be part of the interview panel and his own kith and kin were to appear at such interview. The letter was annexed at page 65 to the petition.

(II) On such a representation though Rajabhai Kathad was removed from the panel of experts for the interview, the marks allotted by him on day one came to be counted and Ms.Komal Shaileshbhai Bhatt, Hemalbhai A Kansagra and Jagmal Vej Anand got high marks in the interview and were placed on the select list by virtue of their proximity with Rajabhai Kathad. Rajabhai Kathad was replaced on the panel with Ms.Mayuri Bhatia.

(III) Similarly, one Mr.Arknath Chaudhary, a Vice- Chancellor of the Somnath University was on the panel who alloted higher marks to students of Somnath University. One Pankajkumar Raval, who secured 16.08 in written marks out of 50, was allotted 37.05 in the oral interview. Pankajkumar Rawal is serving at Somnath University as member of Academic Council and Faculty Dean of Purana subject. Three students, Ms.Atrikumar Rajgor, Hardikkumar Joshi and Mayaben Parmar students of Somnath University are allotted higher marks.

3.1 In support of his submissions vis-a-vis Rajabhai Kathad, Mr.Yatin Oza, learned Senior Counsel, drew the Court’s attenti