JUDGMENT :

BIREN VAISHNAV, J.

1. Heard Ms. Rajvi Patel, learned advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Kurven Desai, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

2. In both these petitions, since the issue involved is common, they are being dealt with by this common order. Facts of Special Civil Application No. 4096 of 2020 are discussed.

3. The petitioners' aspire for being selected to the post of Live-Stock Inspector, Class-III. An advertisement was issued for the posts in question on 26.07.2017. A condition in the advertisement stipulated that in order to be eligible to apply, the candidate should have a certificate of having passed standard 10th with English as one of the subject. The candidature of the petitioners was overlooked on the ground of she not having a certificate of passing 10th standard with English as one of the subject.

3.1 The case of the petitioners is that at the time when the documents were verified in October 2018, the petitioner had passed her Standard 10th examination.

3.2. Ms. Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner, would rely upon a certificate of the Gujarat Secondary & Higher Secondary Education Board, Gandhinagar, of March 2018 to suggest that prior to the verification of the documents, the petitioner was in possession of a mark-sheet of having passed standard 10th in March 2018.

3.3. Ms. Patel's alternative submission was that she had passed standard 12th Board in 2011 and the subject certificate of English was of March 2011 and that being a higher qualification, the petitioner should have been considered for being appointed to the post of Live-Stock Inspector.

3.4. In support of her submission, Ms. Rajvi Patel, learned advocate, would rely on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jyoti K.K. and Others v. Kerala Public Service Commission & ors., reported in (2010) 15 SCC 596, particularly para 9 thereof.

4. Mr. Kurven Desai, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State, would submit that the essential qualification required for being considered for appointment was possession of a certificate of having passed 10th standard with English as one of the subject. The cut of date for the purposes of such qualification, for being considered was 08.08.2017 as stipulated in the advertisement, particularly clause 6 thereof.

4.1 Mr. Desai, learned AGP, would further submit that merely because the petitioner subsequently could pass her 10th standard examination, that would not make the petitioner eligible at the relevant date of the advertisement being 08.08.2017.

4.2. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bedanga Talukdar v. Saifudaullah Khan & ors., reported in (2011) 12 SCC 85.

5. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels for the respective parties, what is necessary to appreciate the controversy is that the requisite stipulation in the advertisement provided that the candidate in order to be eligible for appointment for consideration thereof should hold a certificate of having passed 10th standard with one of the subject being English. Though the petitioner had passed standard 10 in March 2011, in the subject of English, she could only procure a certificate in March 2018.

5.1. Admittedly, though she had a higher qualification of having done her standard 12th and graduation and English was one of the subject, the necessary stipulation in the advertisement was of having procured a certificate of 10th Standard with English as one of the subject. Para 29 of the decision in the case of Bedanga (supra) needs to be referred to and reads as under:

"29 We have considered the entire matter in detail. In our opinion, it is too well settled to need any further reiteration that all appointments to public office have to be made in conformity with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In other words, there must be no arbitrariness resulting from any undue favour being shown to any candidate. Therefore, the selection process has to