Gujarat High Court
Roshniben Anilbhai Gavit vs State Of Gujarat on 8 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5994/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5994 of 2017
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6092 of 2017
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6422 of 2017
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
ROSHNIBEN ANILBHAI GAVIT & ANR.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NIRAV R MISHRA(6140) for the Petitioners
MR PARTH PATEL, AGP for the Respondent No. 1 - State
MR DG SHUKLA(1998) for the Respondent No. 2 - Gujarat Panchayat
Service Selection Board
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 08/08/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Since the issue involved in these petitions filed
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is identical,
the legal submissions and the averments raised are similar,
with consent of the learned advocates, all these matters are
heard together by this Court.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5994/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025
undefined
2. The present petitions, under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, are filed by the petitioners inter alia
mainly praying that the degree of B.S.C. in Medical
Technology be treated at par and equivalent to B.S.C. in
Chemistry / Microbiology / Bio-chemistry and the said degree
be considered as equivalent to Diploma in Laboratory
Technician or Medical Laboratory Technician or Medical
Laboratory Technology and thereby select the petitioners and
issue the appointment orders accordingly.
3. Heard learned advocates.
4. Learned advocate Mr.Nirav R. Mishra for the
petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are possessing
the degree of B.S.C. in Medical Technology; and that they
have applied for the post of Laboratory Technician (Class-III)
pursuant to the advertisement in question; and that after the
name of the petitioners appeared in the merit list, they were
called upon for verification of the documents; and that they
were orally informed by the respondent authorities that since
the petitioners do not possess B.SS.C. in Chemistry or
Microbiology or Biochemistry, they cannot be considered or
eligible for appointment to the post in question; and that the
petitioners clearly fulfills the second criteria for being
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5994/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025
undefined
appointed to the post in question by holding a degree which
is equivalent and higher to the diploma course; and that the
respondent authorities have been changing their criteria and
stand in considering the candidates to be appointed to the
post in question; and that the advertisement was issued for
total 526 posts and out of which, only 501 names have been
included in the select list; and that earlier, this Court has,
in case of another candidate, in Special Civil Application
No.7078 of 2016, in similar facts, has directed to constitute a
Committee of Experts who had opinied that B.S.C. in Medical
Laboratory Technician is higher course and can be considered
valid for Diploma in Laboratory Technician Course. He has
submitted that these petitions may be allowed.
5.1 Per contra, learned advocate Mr.D.G. Shukla for
contesting respondent No.2 - Gujarat Panchayat Service
Selection Board ('the Board' for short) has vehemently
opposed these petitions. He has drawn the attention of this
Court towards the affidavit in reply filed by respondent No.2
and has submitted that the process for the post in question
has already been completed in the year 2017; and that the
petitioners have not joined the candidates who have been
selected and recommended for appointment by the authorities,
therefore, these petitions are barred by non-joinder of
necessary parties; and that the petitioners suppressed the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5994/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025
undefined
material information and misleading the respondent
authorities while filling up their online applications for the
post in question; and that while making the online
applications, the petitioners have mentioned their educational
qualification as Bachelor's degree in Microbiology and Diploma
in Medical Laboratory Technology, whereas the actual
educational qualification of the petitioners is Bachelor of
Science with Medical Technology only; and that the
petitioners had thereby given wrong information in their
online applications, therefore on this ground alone, these
petitions may be dismissed. He has further submitted that
the candidates who have applied online were called for
written test by provisionally permitted them to appear in the
written test by the respondent authorities and in turn, the
Board had declared the provisional merit list; and that
whoever had cleared the return test were included in the
provisional merit list by the respondent authorities; and that
they were called for verification of certificates and other
details personally; and that the recruitment for the post in
question is governed by the Laboratory Technician, Class-III,
Recruitment Rules, 2013 and Laboratory Technician, Class-III,
Recruitment (Amendment) Rules, 2016; and that the basic
educational qualification required is Bachelor's degree in
Chemistry or Microbiology or Biochemistry as per the said
recruitment rules, whereas the petitioners are possessing
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5994/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025
undefined
Bachelor degree in Medical Technology only and therefore,
they are not eligible for the said post in question.
5.2 In support of his submissions, he has relied upon
the decision of this Court in the case of : (i) Gujarat Public
Service Commission versus Dr.D.S. Maru reported in (2012) 3
GLR 1925 (ii) Special Civil Application No.11647 of 2015 and
allied matters and (iii) Special Civil Application No.11668 or
2015.
5.3 He has further submitted that on the proceedings
of Special Civil Application No.7078 of 2016, which is relied
upon by learned advocate for the petitioners, where the very
learned advocate was appeared, who is appearing on behalf of
the petitioners in these petitions and he did not press this
application at the relevant point of time in view of the
report submitted by the Expert Committee; and that in the
said petition, the very advertisement is challenged by another
candidate by raising the very issue. He has submitted that
these petitions may be dismissed.
6. Learned AGP Mr.Parth Patel for the State has
submitted that there is no role of the State in the process of
selecting candidates finally. He has submitted that the entire
process for selection of the candidates is to be done by
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5994/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025
undefined
respondent No.2 - Board only. He has submitted that the
Board has acted as per the advertisement and the selection
is made on the basis of the eligible candidates who fulfill the
criteria fixed by the Board by way of advertisement. The
entire process has been done as per the rules. He has
submitted that these petitions may be dismissed.
7. In rejoinder, learned advocate or the petitioners
has submitted that the eligibility criteria laid down by the
respondent authorities for qualification to the post of
Laboratory Technician is not found on the grounds of
intelligible differentia; and that the degrees produced by the
petitioners and the degrees which are asked for by the
respondent authorities in the impuned advertisement are
similar in terms of the subjects; and that the only difference
is of the nomenclature of the degree and the courses offered
under it. He has submitted that these petitions may be
allowed.
8. I have considered the rival submissions made by
the learned advocates for the respective parties. I have
perused the documents available on record, including the
affidavit in reply and rejoinder filed by the respective parties.
8.1 Respondent No.2 - Gujarat Panchayat Service
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5994/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025
undefined
Selection Board issued public advertisement No.11/2016-17 for
the post of Laboratory Technician in various District
Panchayats.
8.2 The said recruitment for the post in question is
governed by the Laboratory Technician, Class-III, Recruitment
Rules, 2013 and Laboratory Technician, Class-III, Recruitment
(Amendment) Rules, 2016.
8.3 The educational qualification required by the
authorities is mentioned in the said advertisement, which is
as under, qua the issue is concerned.
"A candidate shall,
(i) Possess a bachelor's degree in
Chemistry or Microbiology or Bio-Chemistry
obtained from any of the Universities
established or incorporated by or under the
central or a State act in India, or any other
educational institution recognized as such or
declared to be deemed as a University under
section 3 of the University Grants
Commission Act, 1956;
(ii) Have passed the Diploma in
Laboratory Technician or Medical Laboratory
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5994/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025
undefined
Technician or Medical Laboratory Technology
or P.G. Diploma in Medical Laboratory
Technology or one year Medical Laboratory
Technician Training Course or Laboratory
Technician Training Course obtained from any
of the Government Recognized institutes or
Universities established or incorporated by or
under the Central or a State Act in India or
any other educational institutions recognized
as such or declared to be deemed as a
University under section 3 of the University
Grants Commission Act, 1956;"
8.4 The petitioners had submitted their online
applications and thereby submitting that they are possessing
Bachelor's degree in Microbiology is basic educational
qualification and Diploma in Medical Laboratory Technology is
further educational qualification as required for the said post.
8.5 The Board had provisionally permitted all the
candidates who had submitted their online applications for
the writtne test held on 29.01.2017.
8.6 On 09.02.2017, the Board had declared the
provisional merit list and thereby 759 candidates were called
for original document verification.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5994/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025
undefined
8.7 In the said provisional merit list, the Board had
stipulated that the candidate around 1.5 times of the vacant
posts are called for and inclusion of their names in the
provisional merit list should not be construed that the
candidate will be included in the final select list. Also, the
candidates were further informed that their names have been
included in the said provisional merit list on the basis of the
marks obtained by them in the written examination and the
details submitted by them in the online application, and as
and when the candidate is called for verification of
certificates and other details, the candidate should personally
remain present for verification / confirmation of the
certificates as well as other details and if the candidate fails
to get the certificates and other details verified, the
candidature will be automatically cancelled and the name of
the candidate will not be included in the final select list.
8.8 In view of above, it transpires that the candidate
shall possess : (i) Bachelor's degree in Chemistry /
Microbiology / Biochemistry and (ii) a candidate shall have
passed Diploma in Laboratory Technician / Medical
Laboratory Technician / Medical Laboratory Technology / P.G.
Diploma in Medical Laboratory Technology / one year Medical
Laboratory Technician Training Course / Laboratory
Technician Training Course.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5994/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025
undefined
8.9 Indisputably, the petitioners possess the
educational qualification of Bachelor of Science with Medical
Technology only.
8.10 The requirement of the advertisement, as noted
above, is more than the educational qualification possesses by
the petitioners. The petitioners themselves conceded in the
petitions that they possessed degree B.S.C. in Medical
Technology.
9.1 By way of these petitions, the petitioners are
trying to demonstrate that the degree which the petitioners
are possessing of B.S.C. in Medical Technology is at par and
equivalent to Bachelor's degree in Chemistry / Biochemistry /
Microbiology as well as at par and equivalent to Diploma in
Laboratory Technician or Medical Laboratory Technology.
9.2 Earlier, the very issue has been arisen from the
very advertisement i.e. Advertisement No.11/2016-17 by one of
the ineligible candidate before this Court by filing Special
Civil Application No.7078 of 2016, wherein the Coordinate
Bench of this Court has directed to constitute a Committee
of Experts, who may decide on this aspect, and the said
Committee comprising of three experts has submitted their
report by opining that B.S.C. in M.L.T. cannot be equated
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5994/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025
undefined
with B.S.C. in Chemistry or Mircrobiology or Biochemistry,
however, the Committee has further opined that however,
B.S.C. of M.L.T. is higher course and can be considered valid
for Diploma in Laboratory Technician Course.
9.3 Under the circumstances, the petitioners fulfill the
second criteria for being appointed to the post of Laboratory
Technicians, as sought for, of holding a degree which is
equivalent and higher to the diploma course and therefore,
the second criteria of educational qualification that a
candidate shall have passed Diploma in Laboratory Technician
/ Medical Laboratory Technician / Medical Laboratory
Technology / P.G. Diploma in Medical Laboratory Technology /
one year Medical Laboratory Technician Training Course /
Laboratory Technician Training Course, is fulfilled by the
petitioners, however, indisputably, the first criteria of basic
educational qualification as required as per the advertisement
impugned that a candidate shall possess Bachelor's degree in
Chemistry or Microbiology or Biochemistry is not fulfilled by
the petitioners.
9.4 The Board has permitted all the candidates, who
have filled up online applications, for the post in question
provisionally for written test.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5994/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025
undefined
9.5 The Board had prepared a Provisional Merit List
of around 759 candidates from those who have cleared the
written test and the candidates around 1.5 times of the
vacant posts, who have cleared the written test, were called
for verification of certificates and other details. It has been
stipulated in the said provisional merit list that inclusion of
name in the provisional merit list should not be construed
that the candidate will be included in the final select list.
the Board has further informed to all the candidates that
their names have been included in the provisional merit list
on the basis of the marks obtained by them in the written
examination and the details submitted by them in the online
application and as and when the candidate is called for
verification of certificates and other details, the candidate
should personally remain present for verification /
confirmation of the certificate as well as other details and if
the candidate fails to get the certificate, and other details
verified, the candidature will be automatically cancelled and
the name of the candidate will not be included in the final
select list.
9.6 Indisputably, the petitioners have given wrong
information in their online applications and on the basis of
the said wrong information submitted by the petitioner in
their online applications, they were permitted for written test
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5994/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025
undefined
provisionally. The petitioners were well aware about the
advertisement, more particularly the educational qualifications
mentioned in the advertisement. Further, the petitioners were
well aware about their actual educational qualification which
they possess at the time of filling up their names online for
the post in question. It is an undisputed fact that the
petitioners were aware that their actual educational
qualification at the relevant point of time is Bachelor of
Science with Medical Technology, whereas the educational
qualifications as required for the post in question and as
specifically mentioned in the advertisement itself and which
is wrongly given in online applications by the petitioners, is
Bachelor's degree in Microbiology, which they do not possess
and possess only Diploma in Medical Laboratory Technology.
The petitioners at that time well aware that there do not
possess the basic educational qualifications as required in the
advertisement. Albeit, the petitioners have filled up there
applications online by furnishing wrong information.
10.1 Further, an unsuccessful attempt was made by
another candidate who has challenged the very advertisement
and the very post in question before this Court by filing a
petition being Special Civil Application No.7078 of 2016.
Fortunately or unfortunately, the learned advocate for the
petitioner/s was the same, who is appearing in these petitions
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5994/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025
undefined
on behalf of the present petitioners. In that, a report from
the Expert Committee was asked for by the Court and in
view of the Expert Committee's report, that petition was not
pressed by the petitioner/s / by the learned advocate for the
petitioner/s of that petition. Therefore, the issue involved in
these petitions has attained finality, as none of the
unsuccessful candidate had carried out the said order before
the higher forum.
10.2 At this stage, it would be fruitful to refer to the
recent decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Sajid Khan versus L.Rahmathullah and others reported in
AIR 2025 SC 1300, more particularly paras : 18 to 21
thereof, which read as under.
"18. In circumstances where the appointing
authority has not objected to the qualifications of
the appellants and there is no apparent or
glaring difference in the qualifications, we see no
reason for courts to interfere and set-aside the
appointments made after due consideration. It is
the appointing authority which has to take the
decision on whether the candidate possesses what
is required by the post in cases of disputed
equivalence. This Court has stated the same in
categorical terms in its decision Anand Yadav v.
State of U.P., (2021) 12 SCC 390. :
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5994/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025
undefined
32. We may also notice another
important aspect i.e. the employer
ultimately being the best judge of
who should be appointed. The choice
was of Respondent 2 who sought the
assistance of an expert committee in
view of the representation of some of
the appellants. The eminence of the
expert committee is apparent from its
composition. That committee, after
examination, opined in favour of the
stand taken by the appellants, and
Respondent 2 as employer decided to
concur with the same and accepted
the committee's opinion. It is really
not for the appellants or the
contesting respondent to contend how
and in what manner a degree should
be obtained, which would make them
eligible for appointment by
Respondent 2. (emphasis supplied)
19. The recruiting authority has scrutinised the
qualifications before deciding that they satisfy
what is enumerated in the advertisement. It is
not the case of the respondents that the authority
in the present case has not applied its mind in
scrutinising the appellants diplomas. In Mukul
Kumar Tyagi v. State of U.P., (2020) 4 SCC 86.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5994/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025
undefined
this Court had an occasion to consider the
approach to be adopted by the recruiting
agency/employer while considering the issue of
equivalence of qualifications and directed as
under:
59. The equivalence of qualification as
claimed by a candidate is matter of
scrutiny by the recruiting
agency/employer. It is the recruiting
agency which has to be satisfied as to
whether the claim of equivalence of
qualification by a candidate is
sustainable or not. The purpose and
object of qualification is fixed by
employer to suit or fulfil the objective
of recruiting the best candidates for
the job. It is the recruiting agency
who is under obligation to scrutinise
the qualifications of a candidate as to
whether a candidate is eligible and
entitled to participate in the selection.
More so when the advertisement
clearly contemplates that certificate
concerning the qualification shall be
scrutinised, it was the duty and
obligation of the recruiting agency to
scrutinise the qualification to find out
the eligibility of the candidates. The
self-certification or self-declaration by a
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5994/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025
undefined
candidate that his computer
qualification is equivalent to CCC has
neither been envisaged in the
advertisement nor can be said to be
fulfilling the eligibility condition.
(emphasis supplied)
20. Similarly, in Maharashtra Public Service
Commission v. Sandeep Shriram Warade, (2019) 6
SCC 362. it was held that :
9. The essential qualifications for
appointment to a post are for the
employer to decide. The employer may
prescribe additional or desirable
qualifications, including any grant of
preference. It is the employer who is
best suited to decide the requirements
a candidate must possess according to
the needs of the employer and the
nature of work. The court cannot lay
down the conditions of eligibility, much
less can it delve into the issue with
regard to desirable qualifications being
on a par with the essential eligibility
by an interpretive re-writing of the
advertisement. Questions of equivalence
will also fall outside the domain of
judicial review. If the language of the
advertisement and the rules are clear,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5994/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025
undefined
the court cannot sit in judgment over
the same. If there is an ambiguity in
the advertisement or it is contrary to
any rules or law the matter has to go
back to the appointing authority after
appropriate orders, to proceed in
accordance with law. In no case can
the court, in the garb of judicial
review, sit in the chair of the
appointing authority to decide what is
best for the employer and interpret
the conditions of the advertisement
contrary to the plain language of the
same.
21. Though there a number of decisions on this
very principle, Mohd Shujat Ali v. Union of India,
(1975) 3 SCC 76; Dr. B.L. Asawa v. State of
Rajasthan, 1982 (2) SCC 55; Zahoor Ahmad
Rather v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad, (2019) 2 SCC
404 . we will conclude with a recent decision of
this Court in Union of India v Uzair Imran, 2023
SCC OnLine SC 1308 . emphasizing the restraint
a court must exercise while determining
equivalence between qualifications. The relevant
portion is as under :
14. Normally, it is not the function of
the court to determine equivalence of
two qualifications and/or to scrutinise a
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5994/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025
undefined
particular certificate and say, on the
basis of its appreciation thereof, that
the holder thereof satisfies the
eligibility criteria and, thus, is qualified
for appointment. It is entirely the
prerogative of the employer, after
applications are received from interested
candidates or names of registered
candidates are sponsored by the
Employment Exchanges for public
employment, to decide whether any
such candidate intending to participate
in the selection process is eligible in
terms of the statutorily prescribed rules
for appointment and also as to whether
he ought to be allowed to enter the
zone of consideration, i.e., to participate
in the selection process. It is only
when evidence of a sterling quality is
produced before the court which,
without much argument or deep
scrutiny, tilts the balance in favour of
one party that the court could decide
either way based on acceptance of such
evidence. (emphasis supplied)"
10.3 Under the circumstances, since the petitioners do
not fulfill the basic educational qualification as prescribed in
the advertisement in question and as conceded by them in
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5994/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025
undefined
the petition/s itself, this Court finds that the petitioners do
not possess the requisite educational qualifications as
prescribed in the advertisement in question by the Board and
therefore, the Board has rightly rejected the candidature of
the petitioners. The petitioners are not qualified for the post
in question advertised vide Advertisement No.11/2016-17.
11.1 Even otherwise, judicial review is not permitted in
the matters of equivalence of qualification. At this stage, it
would be fruitful to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Unnikrishnan CV versus Union of India
reported in (2023) 18 SCC 546, more particularly para : 7
thereof, which reads as under.
"7. In Zahoor Ahmad Rather & Ors. v.
Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad & Ors, (2019) 2 SCC 404
it was held that the State, as an employer, is
entitled to prescribe qualifications as a condition
of eligibility, after taking into consideration the
nature of the job, the aptitude required for
efficient discharge of duties, functionality of
various qualifications, course content leading up to
the acquisition of various qualifications, etc.
Judicial review can neither expand the ambit of
the prescribed qualifications nor decide the
equivalence of the prescribed qualifications with
any other given qualification. Equivalence of
qualification is a matter for the State, as
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5994/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025
undefined
recruiting authority, to determine.
(Emphasis supplied)"
11.2 It would also be fruitful to refer to the decision of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shifana P.S. versus
The State of Kerala reported in 2024 INSC 580, more
particularly para : 14 thereof, which reads as under.
"14. This Court in the case of Zahoor Ahmad
Rather and Others v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad and
Others, (2019) 2 SCC 404 held that judicial
review can neither expand the ambit of the
prescribed qualifications nor decide the
equivalence of the prescribed qualifications with
any other given qualification. Therefore, the
equivalence of a qualification is not a matter that
can be determined in the exercise of the power of
judicial review. Whether a particular qualification
should or should not be regarded as equivalent is
a matter for the State, as the recruiting
authority, to determine. (emphasis supplied) "
11.3 The contention / prayer of the petitioners that the
degree which they were holding at the relevant point of time
of B.S.C. in Medical Technology be treated at par and
equaivalent to Diploma in Laboratory Technician or Medical
Laboratory Technology and that the other University is
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5994/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025
undefined
treated these courses/degrees equivalent, is concerned, the
said argument does not hold water and is misconceived in
light of the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Shifana P.S. (supra). The Hon'ble Apex Court has
observed that equivalence is a technical academic matter, it
cannot be implied or assumed. Any decision of the academic
body of the Board relating to equivalence should be by
specific order or resolution, duly published. In the present
case, the Board has specifically stated in the advertisement
itself and asked for two educational qualifications noted
above. Therefore, the fervent plea advanced by the learned
advocate for the pettioners is not tenabel.
12. For the reasons recorded above, this Court does
not find any justifiable reason so as to interefer in the
process of recruitment for the post in question. The petitions
lacks merits. Therefore, these petitions are required to be
dismissed and are dismissed accordingly. Rule is discharged.
Interim relief granted by this Court vide order dated
22.03.2017 stands vacated.
13. From the record, it transpires that, the very issue
crops up as and when the advertisement for the post in
question comes and the unqualified candidates like the
petitioners to be left in lurch. Therefore, it would be expected
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5994/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025
undefined
from the Board as well as from the State that there would
be some clarification regarding the equivalent degrees /
courses as well as some check at the time of filing up online
application, so that there may not be any ambiguity in the
minds of the candidates and we can thereby avoid litigation,
by keeping in mind the fact that the students have invested
their valuable years in such studies aiming to get the job
anywhere on that basis.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J)
M.H. DAVE
