The judgment emphasizes that the employer is the best judge to decide the requirements for a post, but also highlights the importance of analyzing the actual nature of duties performed by the candidate to determine eligibility based on the specified criteria.

JUDGMENT :

N.V. ANJARIA, J.

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. K.V. Gadhia for the appellant Rajkot Municipal Corporation and learned advocate Mr. Rahul Sharma for the respondent-original petitioner.

2. The appellant Municipal Corporation has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal seeking to challenge judgment and order dated 19.10.2022 of learned Single Judge whereby learned Single Judge has allowed the petition.

2.1 The operative part in paragraph 15 of the judgment reads as under:

“For the aforesaid reasons, this petition as far as petitioner Nos.1 to 4 is concerned is dismissed. For the petitioner No. 5, the petition is allowed. The respondent Corporation is directed to appoint the petitioner No. 5 to the post of Assistant Manager as the petitioner No. 5 possesses the requisite administrative experience for selection to the post of Assistant Manager and has also qualified at the selection process initiated for appointment to the post of Assistant Manager. The order of appointment to the petitioner No. 5 shall be issued within ten weeks...”

2.2 The petition was originally filed by five petitioners who prayed for direction against respondent authorities to consider the post of Junior Data Entry Operator at par with post of Junior Clerk for the purpose of counting experience in the field of administration, which was the requirement selection to the post of Assistant Manager.

2.2.1 It was further prayed to declare that the petitioners were eligible for consideration to be selected for the post of Assistant Manager and to appoint them on the post if they qualify in the selection process.

2.3 At the outset, it may be indicated that in course of hearing of the Special Civil Application, interim order dated 06.03.2019 was passed by the Court. All the five petitioners were permitted to appear in the written examination which was part of the process of recruitment. The result of the petitioners was ordered to be kept in sealed cover, which was subsequently opened on 22.07.2022. The petitioner No. 5 only was found to be successful in the written examination, therefore, the petition survived for petitioner No. 5 alone, other petitioners having been unable to clear the written examination.

3.1 Noticing the facts, the appellant Rajkot Municipal Corporation initiated the process of recruitment to the post of Assistant Manager by bringing out Circular dated 26.02.2018. It was a post, which required qualification of graduation from the University recognised by the University Grants Commission. The eligibility requirement was inter alia 10 years experience of administrative work in Class-III in the Grade Pay of Rs. 5200-20200/-. One of the condition indicated in the advertisement was that the applications of only those candidates who fulfilled the said eligibility requirement would be considered and all others were liable to be treated as disqualified. The application of the petitioners were received by the appellant.

3.2 The petitioners were not able to download the call letters, to appear in the examination. When inquired, they were informed that they could not be considered for want of administrative work experience. According to the case of the petitioners, as was laid down in the Circular dated 20.01.1996, the Standing Committee of the Corporation specified that the work profile of the petitioners was digitisation of administrative work. It was the case of the petitioners that they fulfilled all the eligibility criteria and indeed administrative work experience to be considered for the selection to the post.

3.3 As the petition is to be considered for petitioner No. 5 only, as stated above, the said petitioner No. 5 joined services as Junior Data Entry Operator on 07.03.2000. On the said post, he had experience of 10 years. However, the authorities discarded the candidature of petitioner No. 5 on the ground that he did not have 10 years' administrative work experience while holding the post of Junior Data Entry Operator.

4. It was submitted by learned ad