Back
2022 Supreme(Guj) 666
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
BHARGAV D. KARIA, J.
Ketankumar Shanabhai Kotwal & 1 other(s) – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat & 1 other(s) – Respondent
R/Special Civil Application No. 12008, 12009, 12010 of 2017
Decided on : 22-07-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : SR ADV MR GAUTAM JOSHI WITH MR VYOM H SHAH
For the Respondent: MR MEET THAKKAR, AGP, MR HS MUNSHAW, MS. KRUTI M SHAH
Point of Law: The recruitment process must be completed as per the terms and conditions in the advertisement and as per the Rules existing when the recruitment process began.
Headnote:
Recruitment Rules of 2014 - Rule 3 - Gujarat Panchayat Services (Classification) & Recruitment) Rules, 1957 - Government Resolution - Qualification - Select List - Diploma in Agriculture/ qualification of Bachelor in Rural Studies - Post of Gram Sevak - Action of respondent No.2-District Panchayat Service Selection Committee in deleting name of petitioners from Select List and including names of candidates having educational qualification - Challenged - Whether persons having higher qualification could have been considered eligible for post of Gram Sevak when Rules of 2014 as well as advertisement stipulates requisite qualification - Sought amendment to join respondent Nos. 3 and 4 who have been appointed on post of Gram Sevak possessing Degree of BSc [Agriculture] which according to petitioners, is not a valid degree as per Recruitment Rules and advertisement issued. By order, draft amendment was granted joining respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in petitions - It is for State as an employer which is entitled to prescribe qualification and whether particular qualification should or should not be regarded as equivalent is a matter for recruiting authority to determine and holding of a higher qualification could pre-suppose acquisition of a lower qualification has to be prescribed in Recruitment Rules and absence of such a rule makes a crucial difference to ultimate outcome - When respondent No.2 has considered degree holders eligible for appointment to post of Gram Sevak as they are having higher qualification same cannot be interfered. (Para 16)
Finding of the court: When statutory Rules have been published and those Rules are applicable, it presupposes that everyone concerned with such appointments will be aware of such Rules or make himself aware of Rules before making appropriate applications. The High Court, therefore, is not justified in holding that recruitment of appellants would amount to fraud on public - It is trite law, fall within domain of administrative decision-making. The State as a public employer may well take into account social perspectives that require creation of job opportunities across the societal structure - The issue about interpretation of Rule 3 of Rules, 2014 as well as advertisement issued by respondent No.2 came up for consideration before learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of this Court with regard to question of interpretation of degree of BRS with Home Science subject - When respondent No.2 has considered degree holders eligible for appointment to post of Gram Sevak as they are having higher qualification the same cannot be interfered.
Result: Petitions dismissed.
ORDER :
1. In this group of three petitions, the petitioners have challenged the action of the respondent No.2-District Panchayat Service Selection Committee in deleting the name of the petitioners from the Select List and including the names of the candidates having educational qualification other than what is prescribed in para 3.1 of the advertisement which requires a candidate to possess either two or three years Diploma in Agriculture or Bachelor degree in Rural Studies.
2. As the facts in all these three petitions are similar, the same were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience, facts are taken from Special Civil Application No. 12008 of 2017 treating it as a lead matter.
2.1 The petitioners are having the qualification of Bachelor in Rural Studies [for short ‘BRS’] from the recognized university.
2.2 The respondent No.2-District Panchayat Selection Committee issued advertisement inviting application for the post of Gram Sevak in November 2016. The advertisement prescribed the requisite qualification to be Diploma in Agriculture of either two or three years or Bachelor in Rural Studies.
2.3 The petitioners preferred online application pursuant to the said advertisement and petitioners thereafter appeared and cleared the written test and name of the petitioners appeared in the provisional list published by the respondent No.2.
2.4 It is the case of the petitioners that when the petitioners were called for the verification of documents, they were conveyed that the candidates having prescribed qualification as per Clause 3 of the advertisement were only the eligible candidates. However, when the select list was prepared by the respondent No.2, the names of the petitioners did not appear in the Select List but names of some other candidates who were not having the prescribed qualification of either two year or three year Diploma in Agriculture or BRS were included in the Select List. The petitioners, therefore, preferred these petitions challenging the action of the respondent No.2.
3. After issuance of the notice by this Court, the petitioners sought amendment to join respondent Nos. 3 and 4 who have been appointed on the post of Gram Sevak possessing the Degree of BSc [Agriculture] which according to the petitioners, is not a valid degree as per the Recruitment Rules and the advertisement issued. By order dated 07.02.2020, the draft amendment was granted joining the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in the petitions.
4. It appears that Special Civil Application No. 12008 of 2017 was decided by this Court along with the other group of matters in which, the question as to whether the candidates from zone of consideration eligible for appointment of Gram Sevak can be eliminated on the ground that the Degree of BRS in subject of Home Science even though the relevant Rule prescribed the qualification to be the Degree of BRS without any further specification. The petitioners therefore preferred Misc. Civil Application No.1 of 2018 for review of the aforesaid judgement dated 23.02.2018 on the ground that the facts of the present petition was different and could not have been included in the group of petitions decided by the Court as the issue arising in this petition pertains only to the consideration of the petitioners as eligible candidates having degree in BRS. This Court [Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.V.Anjaria], by order dated 29.01.2019, allowed the Misc. Civil Application for review recalling the order dated 23.02.2018. Similar order was passed in Special Civil Application Nos. 12009 of 2017 and 12010 of 2017.
5. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Gautam Joshi assisted by learned advocate Mr. Vyom Shah appearing for the petitioners in all the matters, learned advocate Mr. H.S.Munshaw for respondent No.2, learned advocate Ms. Kruti Shah for respondent No.3 and learned advocate Mr. Mehul Sharad Shah for respondent No.3 in Special Civil Application No. 12010 of 2017, learned Assistant Govern
