Back
2025 Supreme(Guj) 1233
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
A.S. SUPEHIA, R. T. VACHHANI, JJ.
Gujarat Public Service Commission - Appellant
Versus
Digvijaysinh Mahendrasinh Chavda & Ors. - Respondents
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1111 of 2015, In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13857 of 2014 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR DIRECTION) NO. 1 of 2016 In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1111 of 2015 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR DIRECTION) NO. 1 of 2020 In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1111 of 2015
Decided on : 06-08-2025
For the Appellant : MR DG SHUKLA
For the Respondent:MR SHALIN MEHTA, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR SHASHVATA U SHUKLA, MR SP MAJMUDAR(3456) & MR HJ KARATHIYA, MR HET N SHAH, MR AAKASH GUPTA, MR SANDIP M PATEL, MR VAIBHAV A VYAS
The court reaffirmed that recruitment standards must be applied fairly and consistently, ensuring equal opportunity and adherence to established qualifications.
Headnote:(A) Gujarat Public Service Commission Recruitment Rules, 2007 - Rule 3 - Recruitment process for Assistant Conservator of Forest and Range Forest Officer positions - The amendment stipulates filling 25% of posts from candidates with B.Sc. in Forestry. (Paras 2, 18)
(B) Discretion in implementing recruitment criteria - The court emphasized that the expression "as far as practicable" must not be interpreted arbitrarily to the detriment of eligible candidates. (Paras 16, 30)
Facts of the case:
The appeals stem from a recruitment process issued by the Gujarat Public Service Commission where certain candidates were denied benefits of bonus marks due to discrepancies in the selection process, specifically relating to 7% bonus for having a Forestry degree and the arbitrary interpretation of recruitment rules. (Paras 4, 10)
Findings of Court:
The GPSC's method of determining qualifying standards is irrational, discriminatory, and unjust, requiring a fresh selection list to be developed. The actions of the GPSC regarding bonus marks and selection were quashed. (Paras 57(a), (c), (k))
Issues: The court addressed whether the recruitment process violated the principle of equal opportunity under the amended rules, particularly the erroneous application of qualifying marks and the issuance of bonus marks. (Paras 2, 12, 16)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the recruitment rules must be applied fairly and equitably and that arbitrary decision-making by the commission undermines the integrity of the recruitment process. (Paras 16, 30.3)
Result: The Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed, and the actions taken based on the flawed selection process are set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the case and facts. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments related to recruitment and selection issues. (Para 6 , 7 , 10) |
| 3. court's analysis of recruitment standards and criteria. (Para 12 , 13 , 18 , 19 , 21) |
| 4. final decision impacting the selection process. (Para 22) |
JUDGMENT
A.S. SUPEHIA, J.
1. The present appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, 1895 is directed against the judgement and order dated 11.06.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in the captioned writ petition being Special Civil Application No.13587 of 2014 and allied matters.
2. The group of writ petitions, in which other issues are raised, is also decided by the learned Single Judge vide common judgement and order dated 11.06.2015. So far as the issue, which is raised in the captioned writ petition and appeal is concerned, the same is confined to the Notification dated 18.05.2009 issued by the Forest and Environment Department amending the Gujarat Forest Service, Class-II Recruitment Rules, 2007 more particularly, Rule 3 thereof and the Proviso therein, which stipulates about filling up 25% vacancies of direct recruits from the appointing candidates, who possess B.Sc. degree with Forestry as a principal subject, as far as practicable. Another issue, which was also raised herein, is relating to the action of granting 7% bonus marks to a candidate, who possesses B.Sc. Degree with Forestry as principal subject.
BRIEF FACTS:
3. On 01.03.2010, the appellant-Commission i.e. Gujarat Public Services Commission issued an advertisement for filling up 47 posts of Assistant Conservator of Forest (Class-II) (for short “the ACF”) and 120 post of Range Forest Officer (Class-II) (for short “the RFO”). In the advertisement, it was stipulated that as far as practicable 25% posts shall be filled in from the candidates, who possess B.Sc. having Forestry as their main degree/subject. Primary examination of 150 marks and the main examination would be of 700 marks followed by oral interview i.e. viva voce of 70 marks. The private respondents No.1 to 11 (original petitioners) participated in the recruitment process. All the private respondents have Forestry as their main subject in B.Sc. Degree.
4. The State Government on 25.09.2014 issued a further notification stipulating that those candidates, who possess the B.Sc. Degree with Forestry as their principal subject will be given bonus 7% marks in addition to the marks they have obtained in the written examination and viva voce. The said notification refers to the decision of the appellant-Commission dated 15.04.2013. It is the case of the private respondents that when they had received their call letters for their main examination, it was stated therein that they would be given benefit of 7% bonus marks. When the select list was notified vide Notification dated 25.09.2014, names of the private respondents did not appear and it appeared in Part-2 list of the unsuccessful candidates, which was issued vide notification dated 25.09.2014. It appears that their names were not included as they obtained less marks than the qualifying standard for the respective categories even after addition of 7% bonus marks. Qualifying standard of General male category appears to be 429 marks, whereas for SEBC male category, the same is of 375 marks, for Schedule Caste male category it is of 387 marks and for Schedule Tribe male category it is of 316 marks. This led to filing of the writ petition(s).
5. Learned Single Judge, while deciding the group of petitions, including the captioned writ petition with other issues, allowed the writ petitions filed by the private respondents. Being aggrieved, the appellant-Commission has filed the present appeal.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT-COMMISSION AND RESPONDENT NOS.17 TO 22
6. At the outset, learned advocate Mr.Shukla appearing for the appellant-Commission has submitted that against the very same impugned judgement and order dated 11.06.2015, one appeal being LPA No.1105 of 201
