Point of Law: Gujarat Public Service Commission – Waiting list - It cannot be said that GPSC has committed any error in preparing select list and putting petitioners in wait list, as petitioners have secured marks of 32.

JUDGMENT :

1. With the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the captioned writ petition is taken up for final hearing.

2. Issue Rule. Mr. Rohan Shah, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent no.1 – State and Ms. Roopal Patel, learned advocate waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent no.2 – Gujarat Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as “the GPSC”).

3. By this petition, inter alia, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for direction to the respondent no.1 to appoint the petitioners on the posts that have fallen vacant in the category of Socially Educationally Backward Class (hereinafter referred to as “the SEBC”) as the petitioners are entitled for the same.

4. The facts, as can be culled out from the record of the captioned writ petition, are as under:-

4.1 GPSC had issued an advertisement, inviting applications for lecturers for various subjects. Being eligible, the petitioners have applied for the post of lecturer for the subject of Computer Engineering (Class-II). Thereafter, the petitioners were called for the written examination which was scheduled to take place on 13.7.2014; the petitioners appeared and successfully cleared the same. Only successful candidates were called for the oral interview, including the petitioners which was followed by declaration of result by the GPSC on 8.8.2016, containing the select list and wait list, in accordance with the advertisement.

4.2 GPSC had prescribed the cut off marks 35 and 31 for SEBC open and SEBC female candidates respectively. Both the petitioners have secured 32 marks which were more than the cut off marks prescribed for SEBC female candidates. The petitioners were placed at serial nos. 1 and 2 respectively in the waitlist of the SEBC female category. According to the petitioners, GPSC had selected 27 male candidates in the SEBC category and 15 candidates in the SEBC female category. In spite of the fact that there were three posts vacant in the category of SEBC and despite the fact that the petitioners have secured more marks than the cut off marks, the petitioners were not offered appointments on the posts of lecturer for the subject of Computer Engineering. Being aggrieved by the non-selection, the petitioners have preferred the captioned writ petition with the aforementioned prayer.

5. GPSC has through its Deputy Secretary, filed a detailed reply, inter alia, stating that for the post of the lecturer for the subject of Computer Engineering, (Class-II), against total 50 posts of SEBC category, 15 posts were kept reserved for SEBC female candidates and after conducting the selection process, 42 SEBC candidates were recommended, out of which 27 were male and 15 were female candidates.

5.1 It is the say of the GPSC that both the petitioners have obtained equal marks, that is, 32. Since 15 female candidates had obtained more marks than the petitioners, all the 15 posts earmarked for female candidates were filled up accordingly. Further, the last candidate figuring in the select list of SEBC female category was also having 32 marks, but, being elder to both the petitioners, her name was included in the select list as per the governing Rules and therefore names of the petitioners were kept in the waiting list.

5.2 Reply further states that appointment of 7 general category candidates and 3 SEBC category candidates, were cancelled and for filling up of the said vacant posts, the State Government had addressed a communication dated 17.4.2017 requiring GPSC to send the names of the candidates from the waitlist. GPSC therefore, vide letter dated 24.5.2017 sent the names of 7 general category candidates; however, no recommendation could be sent for 3 posts of SEBC (common) category because, in the waitlist, names of only female candidates were available, who had passed the examination availing of the relaxed standards which was 31 marks whereas passing standar