IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
N.V. ANJARIA, ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, JJ.
State of Gujarat - Appellant
Versus
Desai Mittal Baldevbhai - Respondent
R/Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 643, 644 of 2021 In R/Special Civil Application No. 11509 of 2017 With Civil Application (For Stay) No. 1 of 2020
Decided On : 04-02-2022
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 14 read with Articles 16(1) and (4) - Post of Deputy Section Officer/Deputy Mamlatdar - Public Service Commission - Gujarat Public Service Commission (GPSC) issued undertake the process to fill up posts of Deputy Section Officer/Deputy Mamlatdar, Class-III. vacancies were notified, out of which 376 were for General, 55 for Scheduled Caste, 107 for Scheduled Tribe and 195 were for the category Socially & Educationally Backward Class - 33% statutory reservation for women is required to be provided for in each category. Accordingly, in the unreserved category and SC and ST category, vacancies for women in reservation were 125, 18 and 34 respectively - SEBC category, 65 posts were required to be filled in by SEBC female candidates - petitioner belonging to SEBC category, possessing qualification of Bachelor of Pharmacy, applied for the post - She was to fare and was to be considered in SEBC (Female) category - Screening test was held on was cleared by the petitioner - Main examination was comprised of three papers of 100 marks each - Petitioner appeared in the main examination - Part-I list contained name of successful candidates for appointment on 733 vacancies - petitioner that in preparing the selection list of 733 candidates as also in preparing the wait-list, the well recognised principles of reservation policy were not followed. While the petitioner’s name figured in the separate list of 2980 candidates – Held, cut-off marks would be 148 upto particular date of birth and thereafter providing that cut-off marks would be 149 for the date of birth in subsequent point of time, was a miscellaneous aspect - When substantive discrimination surfaces on facts, miscellaneous differences or unimportant considerations of such kind - Attendant miscellaneous aspect in the facts of case where discrimination is evident, cannot be a good ground in law to justify classification - Notwithstanding such miscellaneous or insignificant consideration present, persons would have to be grouped in a homogeneous class when their substantive rights could be enforceable on tenets of Article 14 and concomitant rights, as in the case of present petitioner, under reservation policy - Equality Clause become applicable to petitioner vis-a-vis similarly situated said Ms. Pooja Bhatiya, the aspect of birth date could not have been employed to thwart equal treatment to petitioner - Factum of modification in the list, uplifting said Ms. Pooja Bhatiya to place her in position of earning appointment, while not petitioner belonging to same category possessing the same marks, clearly amounted to meteing out discrimination to petitioner, arbitrarily denying her the appointment to the available vacancy - Appeals are dismissed
JUDGMENT :
N.V. Anjaria, J.
Learned Single Judge by his judgment and order dated 24th January, 2020 allowed the Special Civil Application filed by the private respondent herein. It was directed to include the name of the respondent-original petitioner as next available candidate satisfying the merit of cut-off marks in the Socially & Educationally Backward Class (Female category), and to appoint the petitioner on the post of Deputy Section Officer/Deputy Mamlatdar, Class-III with all consequential benefits etc.
1.1 These two Letters Patent Appeal arise from the aforesaid judgment and order of learned Single Judge. Letters Patent Appeal No.643 of 2017 is preferred by original respondent No.2-Gujarat Public Service Commission, whereas the other Appeal is filed by the State-original respondent No.1, seeking to call in question the said judgment and order.
1.2 Since both the Appeals are from the same judgment and order of the learned Single Judge involving the same facts and the identical issues, they were heard together and are being treated for final disposal by this common judgment.
2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Premal Joshi for the appointment in Letters Patent Appeal No.643 of 2021 and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. K.M. Antani for the appellant in the Letters Patent Appeal No.644 of 2021, as well as learned advocate Mr. K.B. Pujara for respondent-original petitioner in both the appeals, at length.
2.1 The principal prayers made in the Special Civil Application were,
(b) for setting aside all the actions which resulted into denial of appointment to the petitioner;
(c) for direction to make appointments of 65 SEBC female candidates and total 195 SEBC candidates on the post in question, in addition to the meritorious SEBC candidates finding place on their own merit in the total list of 376 vacancies notified for open category.
3. Stating the relevant facts, the Gujarat Public Service Commission (GPSC) issued Advertisement No.51/2014-15 dated 12th March, 2015 to undertake the process to fill up posts of Deputy Section Officer/Deputy Mamlatdar, Class-III. Total 733 vacancies were notified, out of which 376 were for General, 55 for Scheduled Caste, 107 for Scheduled Tribe and 195 were for the category Socially & Educationally Backward Class (SEBC). As per the Notification dated 09th April, 1997, 33% statutory reservation for women is required to be provided for in each category. Accordingly, in the unreserved category and SC and ST category, vacancies for women in reservation were 125, 18 and 34 respectively. In the SEBC category, 65 posts were required to be filled in by SEBC female candidates.
3.1 The petitioner belonging to SEBC category, possessing the qualification of Bachelor of Pharmacy, applied for the post. She was to fare and was to be considered in SEBC (Female) category. The screening test was held on 25th June, 2005, which was cleared by the petitioner. The main examination held on 29th May, 2016, was comprised of three papers of 100 marks each. Petitioner appeared in the main examination. The results were published on 28th October, 2016. The Part-I list contained the name of successful candidates for appointment on 733 vacancies. The Part-II was waiting list of 368 candidates. Such two lists of total selectees and wait listed candidates were published by the GPSC on 21st November, 2016.
3.2 It is the case of the petitioner that in preparing the selection list of 733 candidates as also in preparing the wait-list, the well recognised principles of reservation policy were not followed. While the petitioner’s name figured in the separate list of 2980 candidates, it is submi
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.