Back
2022 Supreme(Guj) 1772
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
A.S. SUPEHIA, J.
Yogesh Narotam Kateshiya – Petitioner
Versus
Gujarat Public Service Commission Thru. Chairman – Respondent
R/Special Civil Application No. 9789 Of 2019 With R/Special Civil Application No. 9790 Of 2019
Decided On : 02-12-2022
For the Petitioner: Mr. PA. Jadeja.
For the Respondent: Mr. Ronak Raval, Mr. Chaitanya S. Joshi.
Headnote:
Recruitment Rules, 2018 – Rule 2(B)(ii), (iii) – Supervision in Government – Possess – Seeking appointment – Held, There is no clarification in advertisement also that only those persons, who belong to technical (teaching) shall only be eligible for getting appointment to post of Principal – In wake of any conditions stipulated in advertisement or in Recruitment Rules, respondents cannot exclude petitioners from zone of consideration – On the contrary, Clause(iii) of sub-rule (B) of Rule 2, which is similarly worded in advertisement points out that candidate must have combined or separate experience in field of training or maintenance or technical teaching or technical supervisor in institution – Both posts are Class- III posts – Hence, it cannot be said that petitioners are holding post lower in rank than post of Supervisor Inspector – Thus, there case for appointment cannot be denied on such ground – Writ petitions allowed.
JUDGMENT :
1. RULE. Learned advocates waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respective respondents.
2. Pursuant to the advertisement No.GPSC/ 44/2018-19 issued by the respondent-GPSC in the month of August, 2018, the petitioners applied for the post of Principal, Gujarat Skill Training Services (Class-II). Since the petitioners were declared successful in the written examination, but were not included in the list of those candidates, who would be permitted to appear in the oral interview, the present writ petitions were filed.
3. By the interim orders passed by this Court, the petitioners were allowed to appear in the oral interview and subsequently, when their result which was kept in a sealed cover was opened in the Court, they have been found to be successful.
4. It is the case of the respondent authorities that the petitioners, who are serving as Assistant Store Keeper (Class-III) Technical Staff (Non-teaching) cannot be considered as eligible as per the Recruitment Rules and also as per the norms of the advertisement since they belong to the non-teaching staff category and the post which is required to be filled-in is of the Principal (Class-II) and their post is not equivalent to the post of Supervisor Inspector.
5. Learned advocate Mr.Jadeja appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are qualified for the post of Principal and would fall in both categories of 2(B)(ii) and (iii) of the Recruitment Rules, 2018. It is submitted that their pay-scales are similar to the pay-scale of Supervisor Instructor and they cannot be said to be holding a post below and hence, their candidature of seeking appointment to the post of Principal (Class-II) cannot be rejected on such ground. He has pointed out the provision of the advertisement, more particularly Clause-2 as well as the Recruitment Rules, 2018 in support of his submissions.
6. Learned Advocate Mr.Jadeja has also submitted that the pay-scale and grade of Supervisor Instructor and the Assistant Storekeeper is the same. It is submitted that since the pay-scale of Supervisor Instructor and Assistant Storekeeper is Rs.5200-20200 having grade pay of Rs.2800, it cannot be said that the petitioners are holding lower post than the post of Storekeeper.
7. Per contra, learned advocate Mr.Joshi appearing for the respondent - GPSC, while placing reliance on the affidavit has submitted that the post of Assistant Store Keeper (Class- III), which the present petitioners are holding, is not equivalent to the Supervisor Instructor (Class-III) as the petitioners are holding the post in the category of non-teaching staff and since the appointment is being made to the post of Principal (Class-II), the candidate, who is working in the teaching staff is only required to be considered. He has submitted that thus, the petitioners, who are serving in the non-teaching department, cannot be held eligible for the post of Principal (Class-II).
8. Learned AGP has adopted the arguments advanced by the learned advocate Mr.Joshi.
9. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and also perused the documents as pointed out by them.
CONCLUSION:
10. The facts, as narrated hereinabove are undisputed. The kernel of the issue raised in the present writ petition hinges on Rule 2(B)(ii) and (iii) of the Recruitment Rules, 2018 framed vide notification dated 11.07.2018, which are also identically incorporated in the advertisement issued for filling-up the post of Principal (Class-II) by the respondent - GPSC in the month of August, 2018.
11. The petitioners have applied for the said post and have cleared the written examinations as well as oral interviews. The respondents are denying the appointment to the post of Principal (Class-II), for which the petitioners have applied, for the reasons that since they are working in the technical staff (non-teaching), and their post is not equivalent to the post of Supervisor Instructor as mentioned in the Recruitment Rules and
