Gujarat High Court
Masharubhai Limbabhai Gamara vs State Of Gujarat on 15 December, 2022
Bench: A.S. Supehia
C/SCA/12902/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/12/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12902 of 2019
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR DIRECTION) NO. 1 of 2021
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12902 of 2019
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA Sd/-
================================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ? NO
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? YES
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
of the judgment ? NO
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution NO
of India or any order made thereunder ?
================================================================
MASHARUBHAI LIMBABHAI GAMARA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
================================================================
Appearance:
for the Petitioner(s) No. 4,8
MR VAIBHAV A VYAS(2896) for the Petitioner(s) No. 2,4,7,8
MS DISHA N NANAVATY(2957) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,3,5,6
MR RONAK RAVAL, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
Date : 15/12/2022
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule. Learned AGP waives service of notice of rule for the
respondent-State.
2. The matter is taken up for final hearing today.
3. The present writ petition has been filed seeking a writ, order or
C/SCA/12902/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/12/2022
direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing and
setting aside the Appendix to the notification dated 17.11.2018 issued by
the Home Department, Gujarat State. In the Appendix, the State
Authority has prescribed the syllabus of the departmental examination
under Rule 5 of the notification dated 17.11.2018, by which the Rules of
Promotion of Jailor Group-I, Class-II (Departmental Examination) Rules,
2018 (for short "the Rules") has been framed.
4. It is the case of the petitioners that the subject/syllabus, which has
been prescribed under the Appendix of the aforesaid Rules, could not
have been prescribed as the same does not in any manner have nexus with
the duties of Jailor.
5. Learned advocate Mr.Vaibhav Vyas appearing for the petitioners
has submitted that during the pendency of this petition, in fact the
respondent authorities have undertaken the departmental examination as
per the aforesaid syllabus and none of the petitioners have been able to
clear the same. It is submitted that because of tough syllabus, which has
been prescribed, the petitioners were unable to pass the departmental
examination.
6. Learned advocate Mr.Vyas, while pointing out the Rule 18 of the
Jail Manual, has submitted that the promotion of Jailors in Group-II is
made by nomination in the proportion of 3:1 and hence, the petitioners
are unable to clear the same. It is further submitted that the departmental
examination is undertaken after a period of 6 years and the petitioners
were also entitled to exemption, as they have attained the age of 45 years
as per the Government Resolution dated 01.01.1999. Thus, it is submitted
C/SCA/12902/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/12/2022
that the present writ petition may be allowed by setting aside the
notification dated 17.11.2018.
7. Per contra, learned AGP Mr.Raval has submitted that it is not open
for the petitioners to challenge the Appendix to the notification dated
17.11.2018 since the respondent authorities, as per their wisdom, have
prescribed the syllabus and subject in order to see that best of the
candidates are promoted to the post of Jailor Group-II. He has submitted
that in fact the examination, which is undertaken as an open book
examination and the syllabus as well as the subjects could not have been
challenged by the petitioners. It is further submitted that, out of 8
petitioners, only one of the petitioners being Labhubhai Valjibhai Parmar
was eligible for promotion in the year 2011 and the rest of the petitioners
have become due and eligible for the promotion in the year 2016. In
support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the
Apex Court in the case of State Of Jharkhand & Ors vs Ashok Kumar
Dangi & Ors, (2011) 13 SCC 383. It is submitted that the prescription of
the syllabus as well as the subject is a policy decision and this Court, may
not set aside the Appendix to the notification dated 17.11.2018 since the
Government has a liberty and freedom in framing the policy.
8. I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective
parties.
9. As noted hereinabove, in the writ petition, the petitioners have
assailed the Appendix to the notification dated 17.11.2018, which has
been promulgated in view of the statutory provisions of Section 6 of the
Prison Act, 1894 read with Section 59. By the notification dated
C/SCA/12902/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/12/2022
17.11.2018, the Rules with regard to holding departmental examination of
Jailor, Group-I, Class-II have been framed. Along with the notification, as
per the provisions of Rule 5 of the Rules, the Appendix-A, which
prescribes for syllabus for departmental examination for Jailor, Group-I,
Class-II has been notified. The Appendix-A prescribes the syllabus and
subjects. All the papers are MCQs and the same prescribes for the
subjects/topic/provisions of law. It is the case of the petitioners that since
they do not have any nexus with the duties of the Jailor, Group-I, the
same may be set aside. There are 5 papers, which are prescribed under
that Appendix. It is specifically narrated in the affidavit-in-reply filed by
the respondent no.1, more particularly, para-7 that the examination will
be of 5 papers aggregating 500 marks with book and thus, it is an open
book examination.
10. Thus, the petitioners have been aggrieved by such
syllabus/prescription of subjects in Appendix-A even in the departmental
examination, which is being conducted by open book. Hence, on this very
ground the present petition deserves to be dismissed. It is always the
prerogative of the concerned authorities of the State to prescribe the
syllabus of departmental examination and the same being a policy
decision, this Court can only interfere in case if the allegations of serious
mala fide are levelled. The framing of Rules prescribing a particular
syllabus or subject for the departmental examination is in the absolute
domain of the State Government and the interference of the High Court
while exercising its discretion under Article 226 is uncalled for. This
Court cannot examine that the syllabus or the subjects selected for the
departmental examination has any nexus with the official duties. In order
to see that the best persons are promoted, the authorities can adopt the
C/SCA/12902/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/12/2022
system of methods, principles and syllabus for regulating the
departmental examination. Such an issue should always be left to the
experts, who are in this field and this Court cannot steps into the shoes of
the experts.
11. So far the exemption from the departmental examination is
concerned, all the petitioners have already participated in the same.
Hence, the prayer clause in this regard will not survive at this stage.
12. Hence, the writ petition fails. Rule is discharged.
13. As a sequel, civil application does not survive and the same is
disposed of accordingly in view of the order passed in the main matter.
Sd/-
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
ABHISHEK/69
