ORDER : ORDER IN SCA NO.9365/2021 1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Chetan Pandya on behalf of the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Sahil Trivedi on behalf of the respondent – State and learned advocate Mr.Chaitanya Joshi on behalf of the respondent no.2. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner had inter alia challenged the decision of the respondent no.2 – Public Service Commission dated 09.06.2021 whereby the petitioner was declared as ineligible for personal interview for selection to the post of Dowry Prohibition-cum-Protection Officer, Class-II in advertisement no.83/2019-20. 3. It would appear that at the time of filing of the petition since the interviews were not conducted, vide an order dated 13.07.2021, a learned Coordinate Bench of this Court had permitted the petitioner to appear in the interview subject to her appearance not creating any right in her favour. It would further appear that later on, the result of the interview was produced before this Court in a sealed cover and whereas, it was noticed that the petitioner had obtained 59.10 marks which is less than the cut off marks for general category i.e. 65.61 marks. 3.1. It would appear that after the said result had been noticed, the petitioner had preferred Special Civil Application No.463/2022 inter alia challenging the decision of the respondent dated 12.11.2021 whereby, the respondents had recommended the appointment to the post in question. It would appear that the said prayer had been sought for in context of a submission that though the petitioner originally belonged to the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) category, yet, since there were more number of posts for female candidates in the general category, therefore, the petitioner while applying had applied as a general category candidate and not as a candidate under the EWS category. 3.2. It is further contended that while the selection process was in progress, this Court had passed a judgment in case of Tamannaben Ashokbhai Desai vs. Shital Amratlal Nishar in Letters Patent Appeal No.1910/2019 dated 05.08.2020 whereby this Court had held that there would not be any horizontal reservation and a female candidate having applied in the reserved category would also be entitled to be appointed in open category subject to her marks. 3.3. 3.3. It is submitted that since the respondent – GPSC had published the select list as per the law laid down by this Court in the said decision, therefore, the petitioner was prejudiced since she could not gain benefit of her EWS status and therefore, a request had been made to the respondents to convert her application from general category to EWS category and whereas, the said request not being considered, the second petition had been preferred. 4. Considering the submissions made by learned advocates for the respective parties, it would appear to this Court that while the first petition is with regard to the eligibility of the petitioner to appear in the selection process itself, therefore, until such issue is decided, there would not be any requirement to decide the second petition. It would be only upon the petitioner succeeding in the first petition that there would be a requirement for this Court to adjudicate the issue raised in the second petition. Having regard to the above observation, this Court would not adjudicate the grievance of the petitioner as raised in the first petition preferred by her being Special Civil Application No.9365/2021. 5. Learned advocate Mr.Chetan Pandya on behalf of the petitioner would submit that the respondents had issued advertisement for selection to the post of Dowry Prohibition-cum- Protection Officer, Class-II and whereas, the educational qualification and experience criteria as found in the recruitment rules were incorporated in the advertisement itself. 5.1. Learned advocate would take this Court to the advertisement and would submit that while there is no dispute with regard to the educational qualification of the present petitioner, the issue in question is whether the petitioner possesses the requisite experience criteria. It is submitted that the experience required is of having atleast three years’ experience of social working or social administration in the government or local bodies or government undertaking board or corporation which can be considered equivalent to post not below the rank of Senior Clerk, Class-III or atleast three years’ experience of social work or social administration or in the field related to social service of registered NGOs or atleast three years’ experience on the post connected with social service in the private or public sector organization which can be considered equivalent to the post not below the rank of Senior Clerk, Class-III. 5.2. 5.2. Learned advocate would then take this Court to the experience of the present petitioner and would submit that the present petitioner had worked from 16.05.2016 to 10.11.2017 as a Management Trainee/Executive – Grade-B in a company named Micro Housing Finance. Learned advocate would emphasize on the role and responsibility of the petitioner as mentioned in the certificate annexed with the petition which would show that the petitioner was working in the area of ‘customer service, counseling, coordination with employees and administrative department.’ 5.3. It is submitted that the petitioner thereafter had worked for two years i.e. from 28.03.2018 to 28.09.2020 with one Mrs. Aanugree Academy. It is submitted that the responsibility of the petitioner as mentioned in the certificate includes ‘complete centre administration, trainer, counselor and recruitment and selection, coordinate with employees and head office.’ Reference is also made to a communication dated 20.03.2018 i.e. an offer of employment by the said academy which inter alia states that the job profile of the petitioner would include working with children who are suffering from different type of psychological difficulties, working on fundraising and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) mobilization, lead in identifying CSR opportunities for representing the academy, organizing the seminars in government and private schools and coordinate with NGOs for needy children and scouting for funders and government schemes to support social services. 5.4. Based upon the certificate as above, it is contended by learned advocate that the present petitioner fulfills the required criteria of having three years’ experience in social work or social administration. 5.5. Learned advocate would thereafter draw the attention of this Court to an additional affidavit preferred by the present petitioner and would submit that in case of selection to the very post conducted in the year 2015, the Public Service Commission had considered certificates like the certificates of the present petitioner as valid certificates for the purpose of appointment and whereas, it is submitted that since at the relevant point of time in the year 2015 if persons who did not have the relevant experience in social work and social service were appointed, then there was no reason for the respondents to have denied appropriate opportunity to the petitioner for attending the interview. 5.6. 5.6. Thus submitting, learned advocate would request this Court to intervene and to set aside the decision of the respondents of not calling the petitioner for interview and would further request that this Court may considering the fact that the petitioner has appeared for the interview in the interregnum, direct the respondents to publish the result of the petitioner and to give appropriate placement to the petitioner as per the marks obtained by the petitioner. 6. This petition is vehemently opposed by learned advocate Mr.Chaitanya Joshi on behalf of respondent no.2. 6.1. Learned advocate Mr.Joshi would submit that the certificates produced by the petitioner would not reflect that the petitioner had any relevant work experience. Learned advocate would submit that as such, the GPSC had sought for clarification from the State Government as regards whether the petitioner would qualify the experience criteria and whereas, the State Government had opined that the petitioner did not have the experience as required in the recruitment rule. At this stage, it would be pertinent to mention that since this document does not form part of the affidavit-in-reply, the same is not being considered by this Court. 6.2. At the direction of this Court, learned advocate Mr.Joshi has produced the original files and whereas, the experience certificates of the candidates whose candidature were rejected and candidates whose candidature were accepted have been produced for the perusal of this Court. Learned advocate Mr.Joshi would submit that since these are documents which show the work experience of other candidates, the same have not been provided to the learned advocate for the petitioner. 6.3. Learned advocate Mr.Joshi relying upon the certificates would submit that the respondent may not be aware about the circumstances in the year 2015 as regards the selection that had taken place at that time and whereas, it is submitted that as far as the present selection is concerned, the respondents have considered the experience criteria exactly as required in the recruitment rules. It is submitted that none of the experience certificates as submitted by the candidates who are considered eligible, would anyway reflect that they were not connected with the social work or the social administration. Learned advocate would thus submit that the respondents have rightly not considered the case of the petitioner for permitting her to appear in the interview since the petitioner did not have the relevant experience as required. 6.4. Learned advocate would thus submit that the respondents have rightly not considered the case of the petitioner for permitting her to appear in the interview since the petitioner did not have the relevant experience as required. 6.4. Learned advocate Mr.Joshi would also submit that as far as the certificates of experience submitted by candidates whose candidatures were rejected, would show that even candidates who had much better claim than the present petitioner i.e. candidates having certificates of having worked with the organization under the State Government have not been considered since it did not appear that the experience of such candidates was corelatable to the term social work or social administration. 6.5. Learned advocate Mr.Joshi would in support of his submissions also rely upon decision of the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court in case of Mulabhai Harchandji Patel vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2011 (2) GLR 1527 . 6.6. Thus submitting, learned advocate would request this Court not to entertain the present petition and reject the same. 7. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the record. The only question which arises for consideration of this Court is whether the certificates produced by the petitioner reflect corelatable experience as sought by the respondents in the advertisement. 7.1. Before answering the said question, it requires to be observed as regards the contention of learned advocate for the petitioner that there are candidates who do not possess the requisite qualification as per the recruitment rules, yet, they have been appointed and whereas, the case of the petitioner is not considered. In this regard, firstly it requires to be noted that there are no averments in the petition with regard to any such candidates who have been selected in the present selection process. Furthermore, more importantly, it is by now a well settled position of law that Article 14 could not be directed to be implemented in its breach i.e. to say that a writ cannot be sought for to direct the State Authorities to commit an illegal act. While the petitioner is claiming breach of Article 14 by stating that in case of other candidates the Public Service Commission has committed some illegality and whereas, it is contended that a writ may be issued in her favour directing the Public Service Commission to commit the same illegality in favour of the present petitioner. While the petitioner is claiming breach of Article 14 by stating that in case of other candidates the Public Service Commission has committed some illegality and whereas, it is contended that a writ may be issued in her favour directing the Public Service Commission to commit the same illegality in favour of the present petitioner. Such a request cannot be countenanced. A writ would not be issued to direct the State or any authorities under the State to do an illegal act. The contention that since the respondents have committed some illegality in case of other candidates and therefore, the certificates in favour of the petitioner were also required to be considered for the said reason, cannot be countenanced and is hereby rejected. 8. Coming back to the primary issue, it would appear that the advertisement contains the experience criteria which, according to learned counsels, is nothing but a reproduction of the requirement of the recruitment rules. The same is reproduced hereinbelow for benefit:- “(2) Educational Qualification and Experience:- A … … … B i. At least three years’ experience of Social Work or Social Administration in Government or Local Bodies or Government Undertaking Board or Cooperation on the post which can be considered equivalent to the post not below the rank of a Senior Clerk, Class-III in the Subordinate Service of the Directorate of Social Defence, or ii At least three years’ experience of Social Work or Social Administration or in the field related to Social Service of the Registered Non-Government Organization, or iii At least three years’ experience on the post connected with Social Services in the Private or Public Sector Organization which can be considered equivalent to the post not below the rank of Senior Clerk, Class-III in the Subordinate Service of the Directorate of Social Defence;” 8.1. As seen from the experience criteria required, it would appear that Clause-B(i) is with regard to experience in local bodies or government undertakings which would not be relevant in case of the present petition so there is no discussion required on the said score. 8.2. Insofar as Item No.B(ii) is concerned, the experience is in filed related to social service of registered nongovernmental organization. 8.2. Insofar as Item No.B(ii) is concerned, the experience is in filed related to social service of registered nongovernmental organization. It is not the case of the petitioner that either of the organizations in which the petitioner had worked, was a non-governmental organization in that sense and therefore, there would not be any requirement to consider the case of the petitioner from the said perspective. 8.3. Thus, the case of the petitioner for considering her experience is required to be viewed from the perspective of Item No.B(iii) which inter alia requires three years’ experience on post connected with social services in the private or public sector organization which can be considered equivalent to post not below the rank of Senior Clerk, Class-III in subordinate service of the directorate of social defence. Now, while the term social services has not been explained, yet, it would essentially mean that the candidate should be engaged in activity which would be closely connected with providing social services in any private or public sector organization. 8.4. Viewed from the perspective of the said requirement, it would appear that the petitioner does not possess the required qualification. The reason for coming to such a conclusion being that as while the petitioner worked as a Management Trainee/Executive-Grade-B with one Micro Housing Finance Corporation Limited for a year approximately, yet, the responsibility of the petitioner was with regard to customer service, counseling, coordination with employees and administrative department. The above responsibilities of the petitioner would be considered to be closely related with the administration of the organization itself and whereas, it could not be by any stretch of imagination stated that the responsibility of the petitioner was connected with the social services. 8.5. Insofar as the certificate issued by Aanugree Academy which is being heavily relied upon by the petitioner where the petitioner had worked for two years approximately, while it would appear that in the offer of employment given to the petitioner as well as the job description of the petitioner as Centre Manager, it would appear that the petitioner was required to work with children suffering from psychological difficulties and was required to coordinate with CSR mobilization and organizing seminars etc. and whereas, the job description also entail supporting mentally challenged children from lowest income group of the society etc. and whereas, the job description also entail supporting mentally challenged children from lowest income group of the society etc. yet, it would appear that all these services would be closely connected with the core activity of the academy that was running a peripheral educational module for children namely ‘Aloha’ and ‘Brainy’. It would not appear from the certificates annexed with the petition that the academy was in any way connected to social work and whereas, the entire focus of the academy more particularly corelatable to the responsibility assigned to the petitioner was with regard to business development of the academy and nothing else. 8.6. At this stage, reliance would be placed by this Court upon observations made by the learned Coordinate Bench in case of Mulabhai Harchandji Patel (supra) as relied upon by learned advocate for the respondent. Paragraph nos.10 and 11 being relevant for the present purpose, are reproduced hereinbelow for benefit:- “10. There does not appear to be any certificate on record stating that the petitioner has the requisite experience of three years in the field of Social Work. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the activities carried on by the petitioner are in the nature of social work, according to the GPSC this aspect is not evident from the documents supplied by the petitioner. 11. In the considered view of this Court, the very purpose and requirement of submission of certificates, credentials and documents is to enable the recruiting body, in this case the GPSC, to come to a conclusion regarding the eligibility of the candidate and to form an opinion on the basis of the same, whether the candidate possesses the eligibility criteria as prescribed by the Rules and as stipulated in the advertisement. What is not clearly stated in the documents and credentials of the petitioner cannot be inferred by the GPSC. For the purpose of evaluating whether the petitioner possesses three years' experience in the field of Social Work, he was required to submit documents that makes this aspect clear on bare perusal of the same. To infer, by a long drawn out process of reasoning and speculation whether the duties performed by the petitioner involve experience in the field of Social Work or not, would bring in an undesirable element of subjectivity, which is to be avoided in matters of public employment, through a process of direct selection. To infer, by a long drawn out process of reasoning and speculation whether the duties performed by the petitioner involve experience in the field of Social Work or not, would bring in an undesirable element of subjectivity, which is to be avoided in matters of public employment, through a process of direct selection. The GPSC, which is the recruiting body, has to maintain objectivity and impartiality in order to satisfy itself regarding the aspect whether the candidate fulfills all the necessary eligibility criteria prescribed by Rules, for the post. This can only be done by scrutiny of certificates, credentials and documents and only if it is found that the candidate fulfills all the necessary eligibility criteria for the post in question, is he to be called for the interview. The documents should speak for themselves and in this case, looking to the material on record, it cannot be said that the decision of the GPSC, debarring the petitioner from appearing in the interview, suffers from any illegality, irregularity or arbitrariness, so as to warrant interference from this Court in exercise of its power of judicial review.” 9. In the considered opinion of this Court, more particularly as noted by the learned Coordinate Bench, the documents produced by a candidate should speak for themselves and whereas, there could not be a requirement to infer by a long drawn process of reasoning and speculation whether the duties performed by the candidate involved experience in the field of social services or not. In this regard, it would be pertinent to mention that both the organizations in which the petitioner had worked, appear to be private organizations which were engaged either in the field of housing finance or in the filed of running a franchise model children peripheral education module. It does not appear that either of the organizations were having social services as either their core function or even their ancillary function. 10. For the above reasons, in the considered opinion of this Court, this Court does not find any error committed by the Public Service Commission for rejecting the certificates submitted by the petitioner for showing her experience as regards the experience sought for the post in question. In this view of the matter, for the reasons stated hereinabove, the present petition i.e. Special Civil Application No.9365/2021 does not deserve any interference whatsoever. In this view of the matter, for the reasons stated hereinabove, the present petition i.e. Special Civil Application No.9365/2021 does not deserve any interference whatsoever. Order in SCA NO.463/2022 In view of the fact that this Court has decided that Special Civil Application No.9365/2021 preferred by the petitioner is merit-less, consequently, this Court is not required to consider the issues raised in the Special Civil Application No.463/2022 as noted hereinabove. 11. Hence, both the petitions are hereby disposed i.e. Special Civil Application No.9365/2021 is disposed of as rejected and Special Civil Application No.463/2022 is disposed of as having become infructuous.