Point of Law: When specific guidelines are provided and a marking system is provided by the recruiting agency, this Court cannot substitute such guidelines by other guidelines which are general in nature

JUDGMENT :

R.M.CHHAYA, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order dated 22.6.2021 rendered by the learned Single Judge (Coram: Mr. Bhargav D. Karia, J.) in Special Civil Application no. 1778 of 2017, the appellant – original petitioner has preferred this intra-Court appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

2. Following facts emerge from the record of the appeal:-

The respondent no.2–Board published an advertisement for the post of Gujarati Stenographer, Grade-III. The appellant herein applied for the said post. As it unfolds from the record of this appeal, the appellant appeared in paper no.1 and scored 77 marks and became qualified for paper no.2 for shorthand test and typing. The petitioner was given 56 marks in paper no.2, however, was not selected and in fact came to be disqualified for the reason that the dictation was taken in longhand. The appellant thereafter filed a representation dated 20.10.2016 and as the same was not replied to, the appellant applied for relevant documents under the Right to Information Act and thereafter, filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter-alia, praying to set aside the select list at Annexures-C and D to the petition and for further relief to prepare new select list and alternatively, prayed for a direction directing the respondent authorities to consider the representation dated 20.10.2016. It was the case of the appellant before the learned Single Judge that the appellant secured 133 marks, whereas, last candidate selected had secured only 123 marks. It was the case of the appellant that as per Clause 7 of the scheme of marking published by Gujarat Public Service Commission, the appellant should have been given “0” mark instead of 56 marks and as the petitioner had secured 133 marks, he should have been selected to the post of Gujarati Stenographer, Grade-III. The contentions were denied by the respondents by filing an affidavit. The learned Single Judge, upon examining the record of the case, was pleased to dismiss the petition and feeling aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the appellant – original petitioner.

3. Heard Mr. Rakesh Patel, learned advocate for the appellant and Ms. Jyoti Bhatt, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent no.1 on advance copy.

4. Mr. Rakesh Patel, learned advocate for the appellant has contended as under:-

4.1 That, the learned Single Judge has committed an error and passed the order without appreciating the correct facts and interpretation of the relevant Clauses of the advertisement. It was contended by Mr. Patel that Clause 7 of the marking system published by Gujarat Public Service Commission has been wrongly interpreted and relying upon the shorthand marking guide published by National Council for the Training of Journalists, it was contended by Mr. Patel that the deduction of marks should have been in accordance with such recognized method of shorthand marking guide.

4.2 Mr. Patel also contended that the learned Single Judge ought to have considered long words as mistakes of the appellant and not the whole disqualification. Mr. Patel also contended that Clause 3B of the advertisement still apply to all mistakes and there is no bifurcation of mistake or any clarification. Mr. Patel contended that if only few words written by the appellant in longhand, it has to be considered as mistake as mentioned in Clause 3B of the advertisement. On the aforesaid grounds, it was contended by Mr. Patel that the appeal requires consideration.

5. Per contra, Ms. Jyoti Bhatt, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent no.1 has supported the impugned order. Ms. Bhatt, referring to the affidavit filed by the respondent before the learned Single Judge, contended that the appellant has been rightly disqualified for the reason of taking dictation in longhand. Ms. Bhatt contended that Appendix-A of the Examination Rules for the Gujarati Stenographer, Grade-III issued by the General Adminis