ORAL JUDGMENT

1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

“(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions quashing and setting aside the impugned decision of respondent No.2 bearing No.RCT-3405-4550-R5 (at ANNEXURE-G hereto) and further be pleased to permit the petitioner to appear in the interview to be conducted pursuant to advertisement No.17/2010-11 dated 01.11.2010 (at ANNEXURE-A hereto);

(B) During the pendency and final disposal of the present petition YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to permit the petitioner to appear in the interview to be conducted pursuant to advertisement No.17/2010-11 dated 01.11.2010 (at ANNEXURE-A hereto) and also further be pleased to stay the impugned decision of respondent No.2 bearing No.RCT-3405-4550-R5 (at ANNEXURE-G hereto);

(C) Pass any such other and/or further orders that may be thought just and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the present case;”

2. This Court vide order dated 2.2.2012 was pleased to issue notice for final disposal and in response to the said order, Ms. Megha Chitaliya, learned AGP appears for respondent No.1 and Mr. D.G. Shukla, learned advocate appears for respondent No.2.

3. It transpires from the record of the petition that the petitioner applied for the post of Senior Drug Inspector, Gujarat Drugs Service, Class-II and pursuant to the advertisement published by respondent No.2 Commission at Annexure-A to the petition, the petitioner applied in the requisite format on 19.11.2010. As per the advertisement, every candidate was supposed to enclose the experience certificate (as per the prescribed format). It appears that the petitioner did submit certificates of experience with the application (Annexure-C Colly. to the petition). It appears that after scrutiny, respondent No.2 Commission did not call the petitioner for the oral interview since his experience certificates as prescribed in the advertisement were not in the prescribed form and being aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed.

4. Heard Mr. Majmudar, learned advocate for the petitioner and Ms. Megha Chitaliya, learned AGP for respondent No.1 and Mr. D.G. Shukla, learned advocate for respondent No.2 Commission.

5. Mr. Majmudar, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner in pursuance of the advertisement No.17 of 2010 dated 1.11.2010 applied as per the requirement of respondent No.2 Commission and that there is no irregularity in the certificates of experience submitted by the petitioner. It is submitted that the experience certificates are as per the requirement of respondent No.2 Commission and are on letterhead of the establishments where the petitioner has worked and where he is still working. It is submitted that the petitioner otherwise fulfills all requirements including educational qualifications and also the experience and therefore, the action of respondent No.2 in not considering the application form of the petitioner is arbitrary and illegal. It is submitted that in fact no opportunity is given to ratify the mistake, if any, neither any query has been raised by respondent No.2 at any time and therefore, the action of respondent No.2 in not permitting the petitioner to appear in the interview is per-se, illegal and one sided and the impugned decision is taken in one sided manner and the same is illegal. It is submitted that even on the ground of principles of quality and justice, respondent No.2 should be directed to consider the case of the petitioner. No further grounds or contentions are raised by the learned advocate for the petitioner.

6. As against this, Mr. D.G. Shukla, learned advocate for respondent No.2 has invited attention of this Court to the advertisement being advertisement No.17 of 2010 published on 1.11.2010. It is submitted that in the advertisement, a format is pr