The court upheld the Respondent's decision to debar the petitioner from the examination due to serious misconduct, affirming adherence to natural justice principles.

JUDGMENT :

Nirzar S. Desai, J.

1. Considering the issue involved in the main matter, since, the learned Advocates for the parties agreed and prayed that instead of hearing Civil Application (for Amendment) No. 1 of 2024, the main matter be heard, the same is taken-up for hearing and final disposal along with the civil application for amendment, today.

2. Hence, Rule. Learned Advocate, Mr. Joshi, waives service for the Respondent – GPSC.

3. The brief facts of the case, as is pointed out by the learned Advocate, Mr. Vyas, appearing for the petitioner are that the present petitioner is serving in the GST Department of the State and she applied for the post of Gujarat Administrative Service Class-I, Gujarat Civil Service, Class – I & II and Gujarat State Municipal Chief Officers’ Service, Class-II, pursuant to the notification, bearing Advertisement No. 47/2023-24, issued by the Respondent - GPSC, whereby, 293 posts are sought to be filled-up.

3.1 Pursuant to the application made by the petitioner, she was issued a call letter on 26.12.2023 for appearing in the Preliminary Examination, which was scheduled to be held on 07.01.2024, indicating her seat number to be 107056711. The mode of examination was to answer the ‘Multiple Choice Questions’ (in brief, ‘MCQR’) in ‘Optical Mark Recognition sheet’ (‘OMR Sheet’, herein after). The candidates were given three hours time to attend 200 questions. The call letter also indicated that the petitioner had to appear at Sakar English School, Unit-1, Chandkheda, District: Gandhinagar.

3.1.1 It is, further, submitted by learned Advocate, Mr. Vyas, that on 07.01.2024, while appearing in the aforesaid examination, the petitioner did not hear the warning bell, which is usually rung before about 10 minutes of the completion of the exam and therefore, when the final bell, declaring the completion of the exam, was rung, she mistook it for the warning bell and continued to write her answers. Such an act on the part of the petitioner was not approved by the concerned invigilator and the petitioner was asked to handover her OMR sheet. However, the petitioner allegedly refused to do so and continued to answer the questions and then, she started arguing with the invigilator. When the situation seemed to be going out of control, the concerned invigilator called a lady police constable, who pulled the petitioner out of the examination hall. It is alleged that, even after the petitioner was pulled out of the examination hall, she continued her unruly behaviour and she even alleged to have misbehaved with the said lady police constable, as well.

3.2 It appears that after the incident of 07.01.2024, somewhere in April, 2024, i.e. after about three months from the date of the alleged incident, the petitioner started making representations to the Respondent – GPSC, on different dates, starting from 18.04.2024, 19.04.2024, 20.04.2024, 23.04.2024, 25.04.2024, 30.04.2024 up to 02.05.2024.

3.3 It appears that the Respondent – GPSC, finally, issued a notice dated 02.05.2024 to the petitioner, asking her to showcause, as to why actions should not be initiated against her for the breach of Instruction Nos. 12(D) & (F), 12(1) and warning clause Nos. (9), (9)(a), (9)(b), (9)(c) and 9(d) of the Appendix-1. She was also asked to remain present, by way of the aforesaid notice, before the Respondent – GPSC on 23.05.2024, at 05:00 p.m., to put-up her case in person.

3.4 On 23.05.2024, the petitioner personally remained present before the Respondent – GPSC and tendered an unconditional, written apology, wherein, she narrated the entire incident.

3.4.1 Learned Advocate, Mr. Vyas, submitted that, though, Annexure-G to this petition, in the beginning as well as in the end, indicates that the petitioner had remained present before the Respondent – GPSC on 23.04.2024, but, the same is incorrect and in fact, the petitioner had remained present before the Respondent – GPSC on 23.05.2024.

3.5 It appears that the explanation tendered by the petit