Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 484 (GUJ)

Pratik Ganpatbhai Damor v. State Of Gujarat

2025-06-17

NIKHIL S.KARIEL

body2025
ORDER : NIKHIL S. KARIEL, J. 1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Vishal Thakker on behalf of the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Aditya Pathak on behalf of respondent-State and learned Advocate Mr. G.H. Virk with learned Advocate Mr. Simranjitsingh Virk with learned Advocate Ms. Ruchi Rampuria with learned Advocate Mr. Jagrat Shah on behalf of respondent no. 2. 2. By way of this petition the petitioner seeks for the following prayers: “5. (a) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction to the respondent, Gujarat Subordinate Service Selection Board, to allow the petitioner to revise his priority list to include all 62 department/ offices for Group B under Advertisement No. 2122/202324. (b) Direct the respondent to consider the petitioner’s revised preference list for final allocation if he qualifies in the final examination. (c) Direct the respondent to decide the representations of the petitioner. (d) Grant interim relief by directing the respondents to accept the petitioner’s revised department preferences until the final disposal of this petition. (e) Pass any other or further relief as deemed fit in the interest of justice.” 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had applied for selection in the Gujarat Subordinate Services, Class III (Group -A and Group – B) (Combined Competitive Examination). It is the case of the petitioner that the advertisement inter alia required the candidates to select preference for the posts or the department or the office as the case may be which he desires appointment for Group A or Group B separately. It is the case of the petitioner that while the advertisement was issued by the respondents on 03.01.2024, the advertisement also contained a list of 37 departments, to which the petitioner could have given his preference. It also appears that later on, the respondent no.2 came out with a corrigendum to the advertisement on 29.01.2024 and 06.02.2024, whereby in total a list of 26 new departments were added. It is the case of the petitioner that while the advertisement envisaged the form to be filled in from 15.10.2024 to 25.10.2024 and whereas while the petitioner had filled in the form on 19.10.2024, due to inadvertence, the petitioner had given preference only for 37 departments i.e the departments as notified in the main advertisement and whereas the petitioner had not given any preference for the remaining 26 departments. It is submitted by the petitioner that while the last date for filling up of the form was 25.10.2024, and whereas the petitioner had submitted a representation in the office of the respondent no. 2 herein on the very date inter alia informing them that the petitioner had inadvertently committed a mistake and whereas he may be permitted to give preference for the remaining 26 departments and whereas the said representation had not been considered till date. The petitioner being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the inaction on part of the respondent no. 2 has approached this Court by way of this petition. 4. Learned Advocate Mr. Vishal Thakker on behalf of the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had committed a mistake and whereas the same was purely inadvertent and the respondent Board, or the candidates who have applied for selection in the very advertisement, would not in any manner be prejudiced if the portal for giving selection is open for a limited time so as to enable the petitioner to give his preference for the remaining 26 departments. 5. Learned Advocate would also rely upon observations of a learned Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Jay Nitinkumar Kothari vs. Union of India in Special Civil Application No. 6183 of 2017 in support of his submission. Learned Advocate would also rely upon notification issued by the Subordinate Service Selection Board on 09.11.2024 whereby pursuant to order of this Court, the Board had opened the portal for a limited number of students for a limited time period. Learned Advocate would submit that such an opportunity also should have been afforded to the present petitioner. 6. On the other hand the present petition had been vehemently opposed by learned Advocate Mr. Gurusharan Virk on behalf of respondent no. 2. Learned Advocate would at the outset, draw the attention of this Court to the “Gujarat Subordinate Services, Class III (Group A and Group B) ( Combined Competitive Examination ) Rules, 2023.” Learned Advocate would rely upon Rule 19 of the Rules, and would submit that the Rules itself clearly provide that the candidate is required to indicate his preference for the post or department or the office as the case may be for which he desires to be considered for appointment. The Rules envisages that preference once given by the candidate shall be treated as final and no request for revision, addition, alteration or change in the preference shall be entertained by the Board or the Government. Learned Advocate would further submit that as such, the request of the petitioner may not be entertained by this Court more particularly since the Rules very clearly have stated that no request for any alteration in the preference would be entertained. Learned Advocate would submit that as such, except for stating inadvertence, the petitioner could not show any mistake on part of the Board, for which he would require redressal from this Court. 7. Learned Advocate would further submit that as such, a total of 5.17 lacs students had appeared in the preliminary examination of which 24903 students have taken examination for Group B posts, in which the petitioner had applied. Learned Advocate would submit that the main examination having been conducted on 8 th June 2025, it is too late in the day for the petitioner to even make such a grievance before this Court. Learned Advocate would submit that the petitioner not being able to show any prejudice whatsoever, which has been caused to him on account of any action by the respondents, this Court may not entertain the writ petition. 8. Learned Advocate Mr. Virk would further submit that opening was for the portal for a different purpose altogether. It is submitted by learned Advocate that a peculiar situation has arisen whereby certain candidates who had applied for Group B, were also deemed eligible for Group A and vise versa and whereas such candidates did not give preference in the other categories and whereas it was under such circumstances that such candidates had approached this Court and this Court had directed opening of the portal. 9. Having heard learned Advocates for the respective parties and perused the documents on record to this Court no case for interference is made out. The reason according to this Court is at first instance being that the Rules itself very clearly prohibit any request for any revision/addition/alteration or change in preference by the candidate concerned. Rule 19(1) & (3) being relevant for the present purpose is reproduced hereinbelow for benefit: “19. The reason according to this Court is at first instance being that the Rules itself very clearly prohibit any request for any revision/addition/alteration or change in preference by the candidate concerned. Rule 19(1) & (3) being relevant for the present purpose is reproduced hereinbelow for benefit: “19. Order of preference: (1) The candidate shall indicate, when prescribed by the Board, the order of preferences for the posts or the department or the office or as the case may be, combination thereof for which he desires to be considered for appointment separately for the Posts mentioned in Group-A and Group-B as specified in rule 6 in such manner as may be prescribed by the Board: Provided further that the preference once given by the Candidate shall be treated as final and no request for revision, addition, alteration or change in the preference shall be entertained by the Board or by the Government: Provided further that the candidate, who intends to be considered for Junior Clerk under the Office of District Collector, shall be required to indicate the order of preference of District up to the choice of three Districts before the commencement of Main Examination as may be prescribed by the Board. No change in preference of District once submitted by a candidate shall be permitted. (3) Where a candidate has not given preference for any post or the department or the office or as the case may be combination thereof, or the candidate has given preference only for a few posts or the department or the district or the office or as the case may be combination thereof, and the number of posts or the department or the office or as the case may be combination thereof, for which he has given preference are not available to accommodate the candidate as per his preference, it shall be considered that the candidate is not interested in the posts or the department or the office or as the case may be combination thereof, available other than those posts or the department or the district or as the case may be combination thereof, for which he has given preference. In such case, the posts or the department or the office or as the case may be combination thereof, available shall be allotted to the other candidate in order of Merit based on his preference.” 9.1. In such case, the posts or the department or the office or as the case may be combination thereof, available shall be allotted to the other candidate in order of Merit based on his preference.” 9.1. Perusal of Rule 19(1) clearly reveals that the candidates for the selection were put to notice well in advance that the candidates are required to give their preference for the department, post or office as the case may be and whereas candidates were put to notice that preference once given would be final and the Board would not accept any request for any addition/alteration / revision / change in the preference. Furthermore Rule 19(3) of the Rules envisage that in case if a candidate has not given any preference for any post or department or the candidate has given preference only for a few posts or Department or District or office or a combination thereof, and whereas if the preference given by the candidate is not available then the Rules envisage that it would be considered as if the candidate is not interested in any of the post or department or office as the case may be and whereas the posts shall be allotted to the next candidate in order of merit based upon on his preference. Thus it would be clear that the recruitment rules have clearly envisaged that preference given by a candidate, has to be respected and whereas the candidate while giving his preference has to do that with all seriousness. The Rules clearly envisaging that no change would be permitted in the preference given and further envisaging that in case if the candidate even though he may be high on merit, has not given enough preferences then there would be a position where such candidate would not be entitled for appointment, is clear indicator of the seriousness attached by the Rules to the manner in which the candidates are required to give their preference for being appointed. 10. To this Court it would appear that while the Rules may not be treated as being etched in stone yet at the same time, any request for any revision or alteration in the preference should be accompanied by a reason, which would justify such request for revision or alteration. In the instant case, the only reason which is coming out is pure inadvertence. In the instant case, the only reason which is coming out is pure inadvertence. To this Court such a request would not be justifiable inasmuch as, as pointed by the learned Advocate for the respondent Board, what had been done by the petitioner is that he did not scroll down the entire form for preference. It is submitted that on 19.10.2024 when the petitioner had given his preference in the 37 departments, if he had scrolled down, he would have seen that there were 26 more departments which were added in the list and whereas there was no fault on part of the Board, which would require any interference from this Court. Such a statement about there being 26 more departments in the preference given on 19.10.2025 could not be disputed by the learned Advocate for the petitioner. 11. Furthermore, it would appear to this Court that the reliance placed by the petitioner on notification whereby the portal had been opened in case of certain students pursuant to direction of this Court, would not be helpful to the petitioner. As to this Court it appears, as evident from notification dated 09.11.2024, that the portal had been opened for certain students for giving of preference, pursuant to direction of this Court and whereas as could be discernible from the notification itself that a peculiar situation had arisen whereby candidates who had applied in Group B, and had given preference for that group only, had later become eligible for Group A and whereas it appeared that such candidates had never given any preference for such groups. The position also was vice versa. It probably appears to be under such circumstances that this Court had directed opening of the portal more particularly since a candidate who had hitherto not been eligible, had later found himself eligible and on account of not giving any preferences, the candidate most probably was likely to be prejudiced. 12. This Court is also alive to the fact as submitted by learned Advocate for the respondent Board that both the preliminary and the main examination more particularly for Group B posts are already conducted. This Court is also alive to the situation that in the prelims a total of 5.17 lacs candidates had appeared and whereas of which around 24903 candidates had appeared in the main examination for Group B posts. 13. This Court is also alive to the situation that in the prelims a total of 5.17 lacs candidates had appeared and whereas of which around 24903 candidates had appeared in the main examination for Group B posts. 13. To this Court it would appear that interfering in this petition at this stage, would have a bearing on the examination process itself and whereas to this Court it would appear that when the Rules have considered the issue of giving preference as sacrosanct, after the main examination has been conducted, this Court would be loathe to interfere and direct the Board to open the portal for permitting the petitioner to give his preference. 14. Insofar as the judgment relied upon by the learned Advocate for the petitioner, the reliance of the petitioner is based upon paragraphs which have been quoted from said decision in the memo of the petition. It is the paragraphs which have been quoted, to this Court does not lay down any ratio which would be required to be followed by this Court and whereas the only aspect, which could be discernible from the observation is that a meritorious candidate could not be denied appointment for a bonafide mistake which was curable. To this Court, the said decision would not further the case of the petitioner inasmuch as the said decision, is reflecting denial of appointment on basis of a bonafide error of a candidate. In the instant case, the selection process is at large. The petitioner has already given preference for 37 different departments. If the petitioner puts in a little bit more effort, the petitioner might not find himself in a such a position as in case of the petitioner before the learned Co-ordinate Bench. 15. At this stage, it also requires to be noted that the present petition had been presented on 04.12.2024 and had been registered on 05.12.2024 and whereas the petition appears to have been listed for the first time on 17.12.2024 whereafter the matter has been adjourned for five times and whereas today is the sixth adjournment. In cases like the present, where this Court has been approached in the Month of December 2024 and where no orders are passed for around six months, to this Court it would appear that at such belated stage, interference in the examination process may result in unforeseen consequences. 16. In cases like the present, where this Court has been approached in the Month of December 2024 and where no orders are passed for around six months, to this Court it would appear that at such belated stage, interference in the examination process may result in unforeseen consequences. 16. Therefore in view of the above discussion, observation and findings in the considered opinion of this Court, for the reasons recorded hereinabove no case for interference is made out and the present petition is disposed of as rejected in limine.