Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 277 (GUJ)

Bhavnaben Dashrathbhai Patel v. State Of Gujarat

2024-02-09

N.V.ANJARIA, PRANAV TRIVEDI

body2024
JUDGMENT : PRANAV TRIVEDI, J. Both these Letters Patent Appeals under clause 15 of the Letters Patent are filed by the appellants – original petitioners assailing the correctness of the common judgment and order dated 16.02.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 4096 of 2020 with Special Civil Application No. 4626 of 2020. 2. Since the issue involved in both the Letters Patent Appeals is common and petitions are decided by common judgment, we deem it proper to decide the present Letters Patent Appeals by this common judgment. 3. The prayer made in the writ petitions before the learned Single Judge was to set aside the action of the respondents in disqualifying the petitioners and further to direct the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioners as eligible for final merit list and also to appoint the petitioners as per the advertisement. 4. The learned Single Judge held that the advertisement provided that the candidate in order to be eligible for appointment for consideration thereof should hold a certificate of having passed 10th standard with one of the subject being English. However, the appellants – original petitioners had passed 10th standard in March, 2011, but the certificate of passing the 10th standard with English subject, as said will only be procured in March, 2018 and as such, at the time of advertisement and selection, the appellants – original petitioners were having higher qualification of having passed 12th standard with English subject, whereas, the appellants – original petitioners do not possess certificate of passing 10th standard with English subject. Therefore, the learned Single Judge held that when a particular schedule is mentioned in the advertisement, the same has to be scrupulously maintained and there cannot be any relaxation in the terms and conditions of the advertisement. On the basis of such observations, the petitions came to be dismissed. It is these directions which are challenged in the present Letters Patent Appeals. 5. The background of fact which has led to filing of the writ petitions before this Court is that the petitioners’ aspire for being selected to the post of Live-Stock Inspector, Class-III. On the basis of such observations, the petitions came to be dismissed. It is these directions which are challenged in the present Letters Patent Appeals. 5. The background of fact which has led to filing of the writ petitions before this Court is that the petitioners’ aspire for being selected to the post of Live-Stock Inspector, Class-III. An advertisement was issued for the said posts on 26.07.2017 wherein a condition in the advertisement stipulates that in order to be eligible to apply, a candidate should have certificate of having passed 10th standard with English as one of the subject and the candidature of the appellants – original petitioners was overlooked on the ground that they were not having certificate of passing 10th standard with English as one of the subject. The contention of the appellants – original petitioners was that the they passed 12th standard board exam in the year 2011 and that being the higher qualification, the petitioners should have been considered for being appointed to the post of Live-Stock Inspector. 6. Heard learned advocate Mr. Sanket Pandya appearing for the appellants and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Sanjay Udhwani for the respondents. 7. Having perused the record, it transpires that same issue has been decided by this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 705 of 2023, wherein, the Division Bench has observed as under :- “3.5 It is further the case that in course of the verification of the documents, respondents examined whether the candidate has been possessing the said educational qualification which is the eligibility criteria prescribed in the Rules. It is the grievance that when the selection list was prepared, the names of the petitioners did not find the place in the list, although their names were included in the provisional list. It is the case that other candidates-private respondents no.3 to 11 herein, who did not possess the qualifications mentioned in the advertisement, but possessed the degree of B.Sc., Agriculture, were considered and their names were included in the list. 3.6 It was the case that the candidates who possessed B.Sc., Agriculture were not eligible since their qualification did not match the qualifications required in the Rules and in the advertisement. It was submitted that their names were required to be deleted from the select list prepared by the respondent no.2-District Panchayat Service Selection Committee. 3.6 It was the case that the candidates who possessed B.Sc., Agriculture were not eligible since their qualification did not match the qualifications required in the Rules and in the advertisement. It was submitted that their names were required to be deleted from the select list prepared by the respondent no.2-District Panchayat Service Selection Committee. It was contended that the appointment letters issued to respondents no. 3 to 11 were also required to be set aside. 4.1 It was submitted that in that decision, the Court has misinterpreted the ratio of various decisions of the Supreme Court and has misapplied in the facts of the case. It was submitted that in the present case, the eligibility was clearly outlined in the rules and the advertisement and it was not permissible for the employer to travel outside the parameters of eligibility so prescribed so as to specifically include in the list those candidates-private respondents no. 3 to 11 herein, who possessed the qualifications higher than those mentioned in the statutory Rule to consider them eligible. 4.1.1 It was submitted that the decision of the Supreme Court in Jyoti KK v Kerala Public Service Commission [(2010) 15 SCC 596], was misconstrued inasmuch as in that case, the scope of Rule permitted the consideration of higher qualification as part of the eligibility. It was submitted that in the facts of the present case, neither such aspect is present nor it is permissible for the respondents or open to the Court to treat higher qualification by applying them as equivalent. 7. In the present case, the Rule is clear to mention the qualification precisely. The advertisement was issued accordingly and the eligibility was mentioned confined to such qualification. It was not possible to be construed for its any clarity to accommodate the candidates with higher qualification to be eligible. Rule has to be applied as it stood. Giving flexibility to accommodate the candidates with higher qualification in absence of anything contained in the rule in that regard would indeed be impermissible in law.” (emphasis supplied) 7.1. It was not possible to be construed for its any clarity to accommodate the candidates with higher qualification to be eligible. Rule has to be applied as it stood. Giving flexibility to accommodate the candidates with higher qualification in absence of anything contained in the rule in that regard would indeed be impermissible in law.” (emphasis supplied) 7.1. It further appears that the aforesaid decision passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 705 of 2023 was carried before the Hon’ble Apex Court being Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 27101 of 2023, where-under the Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated 15.12.2023 dismissed the SLP and confirmed the order passed by this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 705 of 2023. 8. This being the position of law, the controversy involved is squarely covered by the decision in Letters Patent Appeal No. 705 of 2023. Same being the case here, the present appeals are meritless. 9. Accordingly, both the Letters Patent Appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs. Consequently, connected Civil Applications would not survive in view of the disposal of Letters Patent Appeals.