JUDGMENT :

NIRZAR S. DESAI, J.

1. With the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the matter was taken up for final hearing. Hence, RULE. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Parth Patel waives service of rule on behalf of respondent No. 1, and learned advocate Mr. Premal Joshi waives service of notice on behalf of respondent No. 2.

2. Heard learned Senior Advocate Ms. Megha Jani with learned advocate Ms. Krisha Bhimani appearing for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Parth Patel appearing for respondent No. 1 – State, and learned advocate Mr. Premal Joshi appearing for respondent No. 2 – GPSC.

3. By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:

“(A) that the Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ quashing and setting aside the communication dated 31.01.2026 issued by the Gujarat Public Service Commission, Respondent No. 2 herein to (Annexure A) the extent it declares Petitioners ineligible for the interview and consequently declare Petitioners eligible for the interview, (B) that the Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ commanding the Respondents to consider M. Tech (Infrastructure Engineering & Technology) as equivalent to M. Tech (Infrastructural Planning);

(C) that pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition the Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondents to allow Petitioners to appear in the interview pursuant to Advertisement No. 07/2025-26 issued by the Respondent Commission for the post of Junior Town Planner, Class-II; (Annexure-C)

(D) that pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition the Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondents to keep two posts vacant pursuant to Advertisement No. 07/2025-26 for the post of Junior Town Planner, Class-II (Scheduled Cast, male); [Annexure-C]

(E) For ad interim relief in terms of paragraph (C) and (D);

(F) For costs;

(G) For Such other and further reliefs as may be deemed appropriate by this Hon'ble Court in the present circumstances.”

4. The issue involved in this petition is in a very narrow compass, as can be seen from the prayer reproduced herein above, which indicates that the petitioners want to participate in the selection process pursuant to the advertisement issued by the GPSC for recruitment to the post of Junior Town Planner, Class-II, being Advertisement No. 7/2025–26. The issue involved in this petition is whether the degree possessed by the petitioner that of M. Tech (Infrastructure Engineering & Technology) to be considered as equivalent to the degree prescribed by the advertisement that is of M. Tech (Infrastructural Planning).

5. It is the case of the petitioners that, though the petitioners are fulfilling all the eligibility criteria for applying for the post in question, the petitioners possess the educational qualification of M.Tech (Infrastructure Engineering and Technology), whereas the requisite qualification is M.Tech (Infrastructural Planning); though the petitioners applied for the post in question and the application was processed vide communication dated 31.01.2026, while publishing the list of ineligible candidates, the petitioners were held ineligible on the ground of not possessing the requisite qualification as per the recruitment rules, and therefore, the petitioners have preferred this petition.

6. Learned Senior Advocate Ms. Megha Jani appearing for the petitioners made the following submissions:

6.1 That the selection process outlined in the advertisement consists of two successive stages, namely, a preliminary examination of objective type and an oral interview, for which the petitioners appeared in the preliminary examination and cleared the same as they were declared eligible. However, at the stage of document verification, they were declared ineligib