JUDGMENT : SUNITA AGARWAL, J. 1. Having noted by the order dated 25.07.2025, noticing the statement made in the affidavit of the Deputy Secretary, Gujarat Public Service Commission (GPSC), we have summoned the entire original record pertaining to the selection for the post in question, specifically for the interview held on 17.12.2015. When the matter was taken up today, the original record has been produced before us by Mr. Harsheel D. Shukla, learned advocate appearing for Gujarat Public Service Commission (GPSC). 2. We may note that a requisition No. GEC-112015-1029–GH dated 05.08.2015 was sent by the Deputy Secretary, Education Department, Government of Gujarat notifying one (1) vacancy of the post in question namely the Professor, Plastic Engineering, which has been categorized in the general category. By another communication No. GEC-112015- M.P./Professor-KH dated 05.08.2015, in total 13 applications of eligible candidates were forwarded for assessment of suitability of the candidates for different posts which include one (1) application for Professor, Plastic Engineering. 3. We may also note that the interview program notified under the signature of I/c. P. S. to Chairman, GPSC dated 03.12.2015, which is at page no. ‘323/C’ of the original record, which is the same as brought on record by the petitioner at page no. ‘Z – 24’ of the paper-book, and the requisition dated 05.08.2015 sent by the Secretary, Education Department, Government of Gujarat to the Secretary, GPSC record that only one eligible candidate was called for the interview held on 17.12.2015 for the post of Professor, Plastic Engineering, Class – I at Government Engineering College against advertisement No. 49/2015-16. 4. From a perusal of the aforesaid documents from the original record, it is evident that the statement made by the officer posted as Deputy Secretary, GPSC in the affidavit (paragraph no. 3.6) dated 27.11.2017, that after scrutiny of applications, two candidates satisfying the eligibility criteria were called for the personal interview for the said post, is clearly misleading. The officer of GPSC who is the deponent of the affidavit dated 27.11.2017, is required to furnish his explanation by filing his personal affidavit to explain as to why proceedings for perjury be not initiated against him for making a false statement on oath before this Court. 5. The officer of GPSC who is the deponent of the affidavit dated 27.11.2017, is required to furnish his explanation by filing his personal affidavit to explain as to why proceedings for perjury be not initiated against him for making a false statement on oath before this Court. 5. A further perusal of the original record of interview namely minutes of the meeting of interview held on 17.12.2015, prepared and signed under the signature of the Secretary on 18.12.2015 placed before us indicates that :- “Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 17 th December, 2015 to interview candidate for the post of Professor, Plastic Engineering in Govt. Engineering College, Guj. Education Service, (C.B.), Class-I, Advt. No. 49/2015-16. 2. The Committee consisted of the Chairman, Member Shri J.J. Shiyani and Member Dr. Shruti Kikani. 3. Only 01 candidate was called for interview and she remained present. 4. There is only 01 post for General category (unreserved). The Committee did not consider the candidate suitable for recommendation to the Government. The statement showing marks obtained in Viva-Voce by the unsuccessful candidate is also attached herewith. 5. The Committee regrets its inability to recommend any candidate for the 01 post as no suitable candidate was available for the same. 6. Shri A.M. Prabhakar, Principal, Govt. Engineering College, Modasa, remained present to assist the Committee as Government Nominee. Dr. Pradip Upadhyay, Principal, Central Institute of Plastic Engg. and Technology, Ahmedabad and Dr. R.N. Jagtap, Professor of Plastic Engg., Institute of Chemical Technology, Mumbai, remained present to assist the Committee as Adviser at the time of interview.” GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Result of unsuccessful Candidates. Post:- Professor, Plastic Engineering in Govt. Engineering College, Guj. Education Service. (C.B.), Class-1, Advt. No. 49/2015-16. Date of Interview: 17th December, 2015 Minimum Qualifying Standard General: 50 Marks Marks obtained, in Viva-Voce, by the Unsuccessful candidate are as under:- Sr. Name of Candidate E. No. Marks 1. Dr. Gnaneshwary Dushyantkumar Shah 01 Fem. 28” 6. The record shows that the statement of marks in viva-voce enclosed with the minutes of the meeting prepared on 18.12.2015 was signed by the Secretary. No statement of marks prepared and signed by the members of the interview board on the date of interview i.e. 17.12.2015 has been placed before us. 7. Dr. Gnaneshwary Dushyantkumar Shah 01 Fem. 28” 6. The record shows that the statement of marks in viva-voce enclosed with the minutes of the meeting prepared on 18.12.2015 was signed by the Secretary. No statement of marks prepared and signed by the members of the interview board on the date of interview i.e. 17.12.2015 has been placed before us. 7. A perusal of the minutes of the committee, extracted hereinabove, indicates that a general assessment has been made about the suitability of the petitioner who was a candidate for the post of Professor, Plastic Engineering in Government Engineering College. The minutes of the meeting records that the committee did not consider the candidate suitable for recommendation to the government. 8. It is, thus, evident from the original record that a general assessment of performance of the petitioner, a candidate for the post in question, was made by the Interview Board comprising of five members, which included two members as Government Nominees to assist the committee, that too on the basis of viva-voce only. 9. The manner in which the minutes of the meeting of the interview committee dated 17.12.2015 had been prepared on the next day, i.e. 18.12.2015 without there being any statement of marks prepared and signed by the members of the Board on the date of interview, itself makes it clear that the procedure for allocation of marks by the members of the board in the interview had not been followed. 10. We may again go through the affidavit dated 27.11.2017 filed by the Deputy Secretary, GPSC, wherein the following statement has been made in the paragraph no.3.8:- “3.8 I say that after the personal interview of the candidate, the Chairman and Members of the Selection Committee deliberate themselves and decide the marks to be assigned to the candidate generally by process of consensus. There is no practice to allot marks under different heads and marks are allotted in a single lot by the Respondent Commission by consensus amongst members of Selection Committee, such number of marks is recorded by the Chairman on behalf of the Selection Committee and by each Member in the tabular statement furnished to them. 11. There is no practice to allot marks under different heads and marks are allotted in a single lot by the Respondent Commission by consensus amongst members of Selection Committee, such number of marks is recorded by the Chairman on behalf of the Selection Committee and by each Member in the tabular statement furnished to them. 11. We may simply record that neither the marks allegedly by the Chairman on behalf of the selection committee nor the marks allocated by each member in the tabular statement allegedly furnished to them do form part of the original record which has been placed before us today. 12. It is sought to be submitted by Mr. Harsheel D. Shukla, learned advocate appearing for the GPSC that the tabular statement furnished to each member and the marks recorded by the Chairman on behalf of the selection committee are kept in the office of the Chairman, but we do not see any reason for non-production of said record inspite of our categorical direction issued in the order dated 25.07.2025, summoning the entire original record pertaining to the selection for the post in question namely the interview held on 17.12.2015. The statement made in the affidavit dated 27.11.2017 of the Deputy Secretary, GPSC, thus, could not be substantiated from the original record produced before us today. We take strong exception to the manner in which the original record has been produced before us. 13. The further question is about the applicability of the All India Council for Technical Education Regulations, 2012 (AICTE) notified on 08.11.2012 in the Government of India Gazette dated 08.11.2012 itself. Mr. Harsheel Shukla, learned advocate appearing for the GPSC would submit that the requisition dated 05.08.2015 sent to the GPSC referred to the applicable Rules for selection to the post in question and the copy of the said Rules was also provided to the GPSC for conducting the selection process. The contention, thus, is that the GPSC cannot be said to have committed any error in conducting the selection process namely the interview in accordance with the Rules of the State. 14. As noted from the original record the requisition dated 05.08.2015, refers to the Gujarat Civil Service and Classification and Recruitment (General) Rules, 1967, though the said Rules are not applicable for recruitment to the post of Professor in Engineering or Technology in Government Engineering College in Gujarat Educational Services. 14. As noted from the original record the requisition dated 05.08.2015, refers to the Gujarat Civil Service and Classification and Recruitment (General) Rules, 1967, though the said Rules are not applicable for recruitment to the post of Professor in Engineering or Technology in Government Engineering College in Gujarat Educational Services. It is further submitted by Mr. Harsheel Shukla, learned advocate appearing for the GPSC that the applicable Rule namely “Professor, Class – I in the Engineering or Technology in the Government Engineering Colleges, RECRUITMENT RULES , 2012” notified in the Government Gazette dated 31.07.2012 was forwarded to the GPSC for the purpose of recruitment to the post of Professor in Government Engineering Colleges in Gujarat Educational Services. 15. Even going through the procedure prescribed in the Rules, 2012 framed by the State Government, as relied by the GPSC, pertinent is to note that the recruitment to the post in question namely Professor in Plastic Engineering, as per the said Rule was required to be made as per the grade point system, which was to be converted in equivalent marks as indicated in the table given in Rule 4 (iv) (vi). The eligibility criteria for appointment by direct selection to the post of Professor in Engineering or Technology in the Government Engineering College as per the Rule 4 of the RECRUITMENT RULES , 2012 of the State is relevant to be noted hereinbelow:- “(4) possess adequate knowledge of Gujarati and Hindi or both. Explanation:- (i) In case of research experience, good academic record and books/research paper publication/Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)/patent record as the commission may deem fit shall be required, to be submitted to the Gujarat Public Service Commission. (ii) In case the experience in industry is considered, the same shall be at managerial level which can be considered equivalent to the post of Associate Professor with active participation record in devising. quality control, innovating, training, technical books/research paper publications/Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)/patent, etc. as deem fit by the Gujarat Public Service Commission. (iii) Equivalence for Ph.D. is based on publication of five international Journal papers, each Journal having a cumulative impact index of not less than 2.0, with incumbent as the main author and all five publications being in the author's area of specialization. (iv) "Relevant branch" shall be such as specified by the Government. (iii) Equivalence for Ph.D. is based on publication of five international Journal papers, each Journal having a cumulative impact index of not less than 2.0, with incumbent as the main author and all five publications being in the author's area of specialization. (iv) "Relevant branch" shall be such as specified by the Government. (v) If a class or division is not awarded, minimum aggregate 60% marks shall be considered equivalent to first class or division. (iv) If a grade point system is adopted the cumulative grant point average (CGPA) shall be converted in equivalent marks as below:- Grade Point Equivalent Percentage 6.25 55% 6.75 60 % 7.25 65% 7.75 70% 8.25 75% 16. A perusal of the RECRUITMENT RULES , 2012 indicates that it requires assessment of research experience, good academic record, books/research paper publication etc, apart from any experience equivalent for Ph.D. based on publication of five international journal papers wherein, each journal having a cumulative impact in index of not less than 2.0, was required to be considered. The grade point system if adopted for allocation of equivalent marks, the Interview Committee was required to allocate marks taking into consideration all the eligibility criteria prescribed in Rule 4. 17. At the cost of repetition, it may be noted that as per own case of GPSC, there was no allocation of marks separately. The assessment of the suitability of the petitioner on any of the criteria even prescribed in the RECRUITMENT RULES , 2012, framed by the State has not been made. We may again go through the affidavit dated 27.11.2017 of the Deputy Secretary, GPSC, wherein, there is a reference of the RECRUITMENT RULES , 2012 notified by the State Government and it is stated therein that the said RECRUITMENT RULES were relevant for the selection in question and hence the selection was made by holding interview only. 18. There is a further reference of the GPSC procedure Rules framed by the GPSC in its meeting held on 07.07.1962 regulating its procedure and functions to conduct the process of interview for recruitment by Direct selection. Reference of Rule 4 and 5 of the Procedure and Functions Rules of the GPSC as narrated in paragraph no. 18. There is a further reference of the GPSC procedure Rules framed by the GPSC in its meeting held on 07.07.1962 regulating its procedure and functions to conduct the process of interview for recruitment by Direct selection. Reference of Rule 4 and 5 of the Procedure and Functions Rules of the GPSC as narrated in paragraph no. 3.5 of the said affidavit are pertinent to be noted hereinbelow: "4.(1) When recruitment to a service or post is to be made by nomination by selection, the Commission will advise the Government to the framing of RECRUITMENT RULES prescribing the qualifications of candidates and the conditions pertaining to such service or post. (2) On receipt of requisition from the Government for selecting the candidates for nomination, the Commission will (i) publish advertisements in the Gazette and in suitable newspapers and invite applications from prospective candidates mentioning the conditions of services, nature of competition, number of vacancies, manner of submission of application and other relevant material; (ii) consider all applications received and interview such candidates as it considers most suitable for appointments; and (iii) Forward to the Government particulars regarding candidates arranged in order of preference not exceeding the number of vacancies, who, in the opinion of the Commission, are not suitable for appointment. 5(i) The Commission shall invite such representative of the Government as may be nominated by Government to be present at the interviews referred to in Rule 3(2) (iii) and 4(2) (ii) and the representative so present may take part in deliberations of the Commission but shall not be entitled to vote. (i) The Commission may in its discretion invite one or more experts to assist the Commission at the interviews referred to in Rules 3(2) (iii) and 4(2) (ii). The expert so present may take part in the deliberations of the Commission but shall not be entitled to vote". 19. Now, the question is as to whether the AICT Regulations, 2012 notified on 08.11.2012 would prevail over the RECRUITMENT RULES ’ 2012 framed by the State Government vide notification dated 31.07.2012. To answer this question, Mr. Sanjay Udhwani, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the State respondent prays for and is granted adjournment for today. 20. 19. Now, the question is as to whether the AICT Regulations, 2012 notified on 08.11.2012 would prevail over the RECRUITMENT RULES ’ 2012 framed by the State Government vide notification dated 31.07.2012. To answer this question, Mr. Sanjay Udhwani, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the State respondent prays for and is granted adjournment for today. 20. On this limited question about the applicability of the AICTE Regulations, 2012, notified on 08.11.2012 on the request made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, we post the matter on 13.08.2025 at 12:30 P.M. The concerned officer of the GPSC shall file his affidavit submitting his explanation in compliance with the above directions by the next date fixed. 21. The original record, after dictation of the order has been returned back to Mr. Harsheel D. Shukla, learned advocate for GPSC, in the Court itself.