JUDGMENT :

1. RULE. Learned advocate Ms.Roopal Patel and learned Assistant Government Pleader waive service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respective respondents.

2. The petitioner has challenged the action of the respondent authorities in rejecting his candidature for selection to the post of Accounts Officer, Class–I, Gujarat Accounts Service and Assistant Commissioner Commercial Tax, Class–I, Gujarat Commercial Tax Service.

3. Pursuant to the advertisement issued by the respondent No.1 for filing up the post of Accounts Officer, Class-I dated 28.12.2016, the petitioner applied for the same. The petitioner has cleared the preliminary examination conducted for the aforesaid post and thereafter he subsequently applied for the written examination pursuant to the subsequent advertisement on 23.08.2017 containing necessary instructions for filling up the application forms. Accordingly, the petitioner applied for the same. The petitioner was permitted to appear in the main examination, which was held on 06.01.2018 and 07.01.2018. The respondent No.1 prepared a list of disqualified candidates in the main examination on 03.05.2018. The name of the petitioner figured at serial No.79 and the reason for not selecting him to the concerned post was that he was not holding the requisite experience, as per the norms of the advertisement. The petitioner thereafter being aggrieved, filed a representation before the respondent authorities, however the same was not decided and the respondent No.1 published a further list of qualified candidates on 08.05.2018, which has constrained the petitioner to file the present writ petition.

4. Learned advocate Mr.Ravi B. Shah, appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the case of the petitioner has been solely rejected for the reason that he is not holding the requisite three years experience as envisaged in the advertisement dated 20.12.2016. He has submitted that such approach of the respondent authorities is illegal, since along with the application, the petitioner had annexed necessary certificates of his experience and the same was accepted.

4.1 Learned advocate for the petitioner has referred to the certificate dated 30.08.2017, issued by the District Treasury Officer, Bhavnagar, in which it is certified that the petitioner has worked initially for a period from 11.10.2012 to 15.04.2014 i.e. for one year, six months and five days and for the period from 02.06.2014 to 09.10.2014 i.e. for the period for 4 months and 8 days.

4.2 Learned advocate Mr.Shah, has placed reliance on the certificate issued by the Registrar General of the High Court of Gujarat dated 08.09.2017, wherein it is stated that the petitioner has worked in the Nazir department for two years, one month and five days. Thus, it is submitted that the petitioner has rendered more than three years of service and hence, the case of the petitioner could not have been rejected on the ground of lack of experience.

4.3 Learned advocate Mr.Shah, has further submitted that subsequently the petitioner had filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and the authorities had conveyed that the certificate issued by the High Court of Gujarat cannot be considered, since the same will not satisfy the criteria of the advertisement. Thus, he has submitted that the writ petition may be allowed.

5. Per contra, learned advocate Ms.Roopal Patel appearing for the respondent No.1 – GPSC has submitted that the case of the petitioner has been precisely rejected by the respondent authority since the petitioner does not fulfill the requisite criteria of having three years experience as envisaged in the advertisement dated 20.12.2016. She has referred to the various clauses of the advertisement, more particularly clause No.4 which directs that the applicants to supply certificate with regard to their experience of three years. She has submitte