The judgment emphasizes that documents produced by a candidate should speak for themselves and rejects the claim of breach of Article 14, stating that a writ cannot be sought to direct the State Authorities to commit an illegal act.

ORDER :

ORDER IN SCA NO.9365/2021

1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Chetan Pandya on behalf of the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Sahil Trivedi on behalf of the respondent – State and learned advocate Mr.Chaitanya Joshi on behalf of the respondent no.2.

2. By way of this petition, the petitioner had inter alia challenged the decision of the respondent no.2 – Public Service Commission dated 09.06.2021 whereby the petitioner was declared as ineligible for personal interview for selection to the post of Dowry Prohibition-cum-Protection Officer, Class-II in advertisement no.83/2019-20.

3. It would appear that at the time of filing of the petition since the interviews were not conducted, vide an order dated 13.07.2021, a learned Coordinate Bench of this Court had permitted the petitioner to appear in the interview subject to her appearance not creating any right in her favour. It would further appear that later on, the result of the interview was produced before this Court in a sealed cover and whereas, it was noticed that the petitioner had obtained 59.10 marks which is less than the cut off marks for general category i.e. 65.61 marks.

3.1. It would appear that after the said result had been noticed, the petitioner had preferred Special Civil Application No.463/2022 inter alia challenging the decision of the respondent dated 12.11.2021 whereby, the respondents had recommended the appointment to the post in question. It would appear that the said prayer had been sought for in context of a submission that though the petitioner originally belonged to the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) category, yet, since there were more number of posts for female candidates in the general category, therefore, the petitioner while applying had applied as a general category candidate and not as a candidate under the EWS category.

3.2. It is further contended that while the selection process was in progress, this Court had passed a judgment in case of Tamannaben Ashokbhai Desai vs. Shital Amratlal Nishar in Letters Patent Appeal No.1910/2019 dated 05.08.2020 whereby this Court had held that there would not be any horizontal reservation and a female candidate having applied in the reserved category would also be entitled to be appointed in open category subject to her marks.

3.3. It is submitted that since the respondent – GPSC had published the select list as per the law laid down by this Court in the said decision, therefore, the petitioner was prejudiced since she could not gain benefit of her EWS status and therefore, a request had been made to the respondents to convert her application from general category to EWS category and whereas, the said request not being considered, the second petition had been preferred.

4. Considering the submissions made by learned advocates for the respective parties, it would appear to this Court that while the first petition is with regard to the eligibility of the petitioner to appear in the selection process itself, therefore, until such issue is decided, there would not be any requirement to decide the second petition. It would be only upon the petitioner succeeding in the first petition that there would be a requirement for this Court to adjudicate the issue raised in the second petition. Having regard to the above observation, this Court would not adjudicate the grievance of the petitioner as raised in the first petition preferred by her being Special Civil Application No.9365/2021.

5. Learned advocate Mr.Chetan Pandya on behalf of the petitioner would submit that the respondents had issued advertisement for selection to the post of Dowry Prohibition-cum- Protection Officer, Class-II and whereas, the educational qualification and experience criteria as found in the recruitment rules were incorporated in the advertisement itself.

5.1. Learned advocate would take this Court to the advertisement and would submit that while there is no dispute with regard to the educational qualification of the present petit