IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
N.V.ANJARIA, CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, JJ.
Dr Tejas Mahasukhlal Tankdr Tejas Mahasukhlal Tank & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Gujarat Public Service Commission Thru Chairman & Anr – Respondents
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 397 of 2022 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7791 of 2018 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR PRODUCTION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES) NO. 1 of 2023 In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 397 of 2022
Decided on : 21-02-2024
CANCELLATION - Assistant Professor Recruitment - Advertisement No.69/2016-17 to 94/2016-17 - 14(4) - The court discussed the cancellation of minimum qualifying marks for the recruitment process and its discriminatory application to different subjects. The judgment highlighted the principles of uniform application of rules and the prohibition of changing rules in the middle of the recruitment process.
JUDGMENT :
N.V.ANJARIA, J.
Heard learned advocate Mr. Chirag Kakkad for the appellants, learned advocate Mr. Alkesh Shah for respondent No.1 Gujarat Public Service Commission and learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Shruti Dhruve for respondent State, at length.
2. By filing the present Letters Patent Appeal, the appellants-original petitioners have called in question the judgment and order dated 05.01.2022 of learned Single Judge whereby learned Single Judge dismissed the Special Civil Application.
2.1 What was prayed in the petition by the petitioners, twelve in numbers, was to direct the respondent authorities to fill up all 51 posts of Assistant Professor in the subject of physics, in the various Government Science Colleges, on the basis of the merit list and without subjecting the petitioners to fulfil the criteria of minimum cutoff marks prescribed in clause 14(4) of the general terms and conditions of the advertisement, pursuant to which, the posts were sought to be filled in.
2.2 Also prayed in the context, was to set aside the decision reflected in the Circular dated 31.03.2018, whereby the provision of cut-off marks was cancelled for posts in different subjects other than Physics. It was prayed that the decision dated 31.03.2018 which lifted the cut-off marks for the subjects other than physics was discriminatory and created an unreasonable classification.
3. The relevant facts to be noted are inter alia that Advertisement No.69/2016-17 to 94/2016-17 were issued by respondent no.1-Gujarat Public Service Commission (GPSC) for recruitment to the posts of Assistant Professor in different faculties of Government Arts, Commerce and Science colleges. The appellants-petitioners applied in response to the Advertisement No. 88/2016-17 for the post of Assistant Professor in the subject of Physics. Total 51 vacancies were available, out of which, 20 were for general category, 02 for Scheduled Caste and 14 for Scheduled Tribe, whereas 15 was for Socially and Economically Backward Class.
3.1 Preliminary examinations were held for the said posts between 21.06.2017 and 09.10.2017. The result of the preliminary examination was declared on 06.12.2017. Based on the result of the examination, interviews were conducted between 29.01.2018 to 02.02.2018 for the said post of Assistant Professor, Physics.
3.2 Cut off marks were prescribed for different categories. In general category, 50 marks were prescribed for male, whereas for female, 45 marks were prescribed. For Socially and Economically Backward Class male candidates, 35 marks were prescribed, whereas for Socially and Economically Backward Class female candidates, 31 marks were prescribed. Same was the prescription for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates. In the result published on 07.02.2018, 15 candidates were found to have received marks above the cut-off marks. They were recommended by the GPSC for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor (Physics). The appellants herein failed to obtain the minimum marks. They were placed in the list of unsuccessful candidates at serial nos. 8, 25, 27 and 29. The list of the candidates who were recommended to the Government for appointment, and those kept on waiting list and list of unsuccessful candidates figures on record (Page 64 to 68).
3.3 Like the list of Assistant Professor in Physics, in the subject of Drama and Mathematics, which were Advertisement No. 75/16 and 92/16, there were 3 and 16 vacancies respectively. In Drama, none of the candidates were recommended by GPSC whereas in Mathematics, 4 candidates were recommended. The total number of vacancies in both the subjects could not be filled on account of criteria.
3.4 Similarly, in the subject of Hindi, English, etc. in all, 12 other subjects, vacancies were advertised and out of the total, successful candidates were recommended by GSPC for appointment. The details about the interview date, vacancies advertised, number of persons recommended, etc., in the subject of physics
Durgacharan Misra v. State of Orissa [1987 (4) SCC 646].
The cancellation of minimum qualifying marks for the recruitment process and its discriminatory application to different subjects was set aside by the court.
Qualifying marks in recruitment are class-specific, allowing candidates to progress in selection regardless of their category, as per Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
(1) Advertisement, made pursuant to a notification, binds parties – It has got all trappings of a statutory prescription unless it becomes contrary to either a rule or an Act – Change can only be bro....
An administrative decision does not always require a statutory sanction. For instance, it is well settled that for holding interviews for selection/admissions shortlisting can be done, and it is not ....
The court upheld the validity of minimum qualifying marks for recruitment as a discretionary power of the Commission, emphasizing administrative fairness and the principle that participation in the p....
Public Service Commission - Civil service Examination - Public Service Commission have no power to relax the recruitment norms - Public Service Commission have no power to relax the recruitment norms
Retrospective fixation of minimum qualifying marks after exam result declaration changes rules of game impermissibly; candidates in initial combined merit list entitled to consideration without such ....
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.