SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Guj) 1550

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
NIRZAR S. DESAI, J.
Barot Chiragkumar Rameshbhai & 1 Others – Petitioners
Versus
Gujarat Panchayat Service Selection Board & 12 Others – Respondents
R/Special Civil Application No. 459 of 2018
Decided On : 13-12-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. T.R. Mishra.
For the Respondents: Mr. D.G. Shukla, Mr. Kurven Desai, Notice Served.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the rules prescribed any equivalent educational qualification apart from diploma holders, and therefore, degree holders were rightly allowed to participate in the selection process.

Headnote:

Degree Holders - Eligibility for Additional Assistant Engineer (Civil) - Rule 3b - The court examined whether a person with a degree in Civil Engineering is eligible for the post of Additional Assistant Engineer and whether their participation in the recruitment process was in accordance with the rules. The court found that the rules prescribed any equivalent educational qualification apart from diploma holders, and therefore, degree holders were rightly allowed to participate in the selection process. The petition was dismissed on the grounds of non-joinder of necessary party, delay, and the petitioners' participation in the selection process without objection.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, diploma holders in Civil Engineering, challenged the selection of degree holders for the post of Additional Assistant Engineer (Civil) based on the advertisement issued by Respondent No.1 in 2016. They argued that the selection process was defective as it did not adhere to the rules and allowed degree holders to be appointed, causing gross injustice to diploma holders.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the rules prescribed any equivalent educational qualification apart from diploma holders, and therefore, degree holders were rightly allowed to participate in the selection process. The petition was dismissed on the grounds of non-joinder of necessary party, delay, and the petitioners' participation in the selection process without objection.

Issues: The main issue was whether degree holders were eligible for the post of Additional Assistant Engineer and whether their participation in the recruitment process was in accordance with the rules. The court also considered the non-joinder of necessary party and delay in filing the petition.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the rules prescribed any equivalent educational qualification apart from diploma holders, and therefore, degree holders were rightly allowed to participate in the selection process. The petition was dismissed on the grounds of non-joinder of necessary party, delay, and the petitioners' participation in the selection process without objection.

Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the rule was discharged. No order as to costs.

JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Learned advocate Mr.D.G.Shukla waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of Respondent No.1 and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Kurven Desai waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of Respondent No.2.

2. By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for following reliefs:

    “(A) That Your Lordships be pleased to issue an order, direction and/or writ in the nature of certiorari and/or mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the impugned selection of the candidates holding Degree and ignoring the claim of the Diploma Holders, as illegal and against the Recruitment Rules and against the Advertisement issued by the Selection Board;

(B) Pending admission and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships be pleased to direct the respondents to keep 2 posts vacant for the post of Additional Assistant Engineer (Civil);

(C) Any other and such further relief as may be deemed fit just and proper may be granted in the interest of justice together with costs”

3. Heard learned advocate Mr.T.R.Mishra for the petitioners, learned advocate Mr.D.G.Shukla for Respondent No.1 and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Kurven Desai for Respondent No.2.

4.1 It is the case of the petitioners that pursuant to an advertisement published by Respondent No.1 in the year 2016 for the posts of Additional Assistant Engineer (Civil), which is Class-III post, which were to be filled up by way of direct recruitment, the petitioners applied for the said posts.

4.2 Both the petitioners are diploma holders in Civil Engineering and they were fulfilling the educational criteria prescribed for being appointed for the said post. According to the petitioners, in the advertisement, more particularly Clause-3 and 3.1 refers to about age limit and educational qualification. In all, there were three educational qualifications prescribed, however, for the purpose of determining the issue on hand, what is important is the educational qualification in respect of Civil Engineering and not about basic knowledge of computer or knowledge of Gujarati and Hindi language. Aforesaid relevant educational qualification is prescribed in advertisement No.1/2016-17 for the post of Additional Assistant Engineer (Civil) produced at Annexure-A i.e. at page:19 of the petition.

4.3 The educational qualification for the post of the Additional Assistant Engineer (Civil) Class-III as per the in the superior Panchayat Service Recruitment Rules, 2014, is described in Rule 3b as under:

    “3. To be eligible for appointment by direct selection to the post mentioned in rule 2, a candidate shall –

(a) xxx xxx

(b) possess a Diploma in Civil Engineering obtained from Technical Examination Board or any of the Universities or institutions established or incorporated by or under the Central or State Act in India; or any other educational institution recognized as such or declared as deemed to be a University under section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 or an equivalent qualification recognized by the Government.”

4.4 The grievance of the petitioner is that pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement, petitioners appeared in the examination and secured reasonably good marks, however, though the educational qualification prescribed for being appointed on the post was Diploma in Civil Engineering, the Respondent No.1 considered the persons who were having Degree in Civil Engineering and, therefore, the entire selection process is defective as the same has not been carried out strictly in accordance with the Rules and though the post was meant only for Diploma holders by considering candidatures of Degree Holders also a gross injustice has been done to the Diploma holders and had the Degree holders not been selected, the present petitioners could have found their place in the select list and could have been select

            Click Here to Read the rest of this document
            1
            2
            3
            4
            5
            6
            7
            8
            9
            10
            11
            SupremeToday Portrait Ad
            supreme today icon
            logo-black

            An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

            Please visit our Training & Support
            Center or Contact Us for assistance

            qr

            Scan Me!

            India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

            For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

            whatsapp-icon Back to top