Gujarat High Court
Tejendrakumar Babubhai Parmar vs The State Of Gujarat on 11 August, 2025
Author: Nikhil S. Kariel
Bench: Nikhil S. Kariel
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11103/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11103 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==========================================================
TEJENDRAKUMAR BABUBHAI PARMAR & ORS.
Versus
THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR RIYAZ R PARMAR(11846) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,10,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
MS NIRALI SARDA, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s)
No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL
Date : 11/08/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Riyaz Parmar appearing on
behalf of the petitioners and learned Assistant Government
Pleader Ms.Nirali Sarda appearing on behalf of the
respondent - State.
2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought for the
following prayers:-
"(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ
of Mandamus or writ in nature of Mandamus or any
other appropriate writ, order and/or direction,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11103/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025
undefined
directing the respondent authorities to reconsider the
candidature of the petitioners for the post of Kanyaan
Tantrik Madadnish (Junior Technical Assistant) and
further be pleased to permit them to submit the
Licentiate Certificate in General Insurance within a
reasonable and stipulated time-frame, preferably
after the declaration of results of the September 2025
examination in which the Petitioners are already
enrolled and due to appear, in the interest of justice;
(B) Your Lordships may further be pleased to
direct the respondents authorities to provisionally
consider the petitioners as successful candidates in
the recruitment process initiated under
Advertisement No.220/2023-24 for the post of
Kanyaan Tantrik Madadnish (Junior Technical
Assistant) and to recommend their names for
appointment, subject to the production of the
Licentiate Certificate within the time so granted, in
the interest of justice; as Annexure-A
(C) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal
of the present petition, Your Lordship may be pleased
to stay the effect, implementation and operation of
the rejection notification dated 19.07.2025 Annexure-
E issued by the Gujarat Subordinate Services
Selection Board (GSSSB) whereby the petitioners
were declared unsuccessful on the sole ground of
non-submission of the Licentiate Certificate; and
further Your Lordships may further be pleased to
direct the respondents authorities to provisionally
consider the petitioners as successful candidates in
the recruitment process initiated under
Advertisement No.220/2023-24 as Annexure-A for the
post of Kanyaan Tantrik Madadnish (Junior Technical
Assistant) and to recommend their names for
appointment, subject to the production of the
Licentiate Certificate within the time so granted, in
the interest of justice;
(D) Your Lordships may be pleased to grant such
other and further relief as may be deem just and
proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11103/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025
undefined
in the interest of justice."
3. It is the case of the petitioner that he had applied for
selection to the post of Junior Technical Assistant as
advertised by respondent no.2 and whereas, one of the
eligibility criteria as mentioned in the advertisement was
possession of Licentiate Certificate of General Insurance
subject from Insurance Institution of India.
3.1. It appears that the petitioners had applied for selection
and whereas, though selected, the selection process for the
said post had been canceled by the respondent no.2 on the
ground that after the prelims examination, upon verification,
it was found that selected candidates did not have the above
referred certificate.
4. Learned advocate Mr.Parmar would submit that in an
advertisement by the respondent authorities in an earlier
recruitment in the year 2016-17, the qualification of Licentiate
Certificate was not there and whereas, the candidates were
only required to have diploma in Insurance or an equivalent
certificate. Learned advocate would submit that since a
different qualification is required in the earlier recruitment
process, therefore, the reliance upon the Licentiate Certificate
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11103/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025
undefined
was erroneous and whereas, this Court may direct the
respondents to also consider the diploma in Insurance as
being a relevant consideration.
5. As against the same, learned AGP Ms.Sarda would
tender a copy of the recruitment rules which clearly specifies
that a candidate should have a Licentiate Certificate referred
to hereinabove. Learned AGP would submit that the
concerned certificate is a qualification as per the recruitment
rules, the respondent no.2 could not be faulted in issuing
advertisement for filling up of vacancies for the post in
question with the said relevant qualification. Learned AGP
would further submit that the petitioners admittedly not
having such certificate, may not be entitled to any relief from
this Court.
6. Having heard the learned advocate Mr.Parmar and
learned AGP Ms.Sarda, to this Court, it would appear that the
entire petition is misconceived. The basis for the petition, as
could be culled out, being that in an advertisement for the
year 2016-17, the requirement was different than the
requirement in an advertisement for the same post in the year
2023-24 and whereas, upon perusal of the recruitment rules,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11103/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025
undefined
it would be evident that the said rules have been framed on
17.08.2020. It would clearly appear that the said rules were
after the advertisement being relied upon by learned advocate
Mr.Parmar and whereas, if a recruitment rule has been
promulgated after the advertisement, the requirement as
mentioned in the prior advertisement, would be of no
consequences upon the recruitment rule coming out with a
different set of qualification. Unless the recruitment rule is
questioned on its validity, respondent no.2 could not be in any
manner whatsoever faulted with having relied upon the
requirement as found in the recruitment rule.
6.1. To this Court, it would appear that once the qualification
for being appointed to a post has been fixed by framing of the
recruitment rules, then it would be that qualification which
would be the relevant and necessary qualification which an
aspirant for the post should possess if he wants to join the
selection process. Upon a recruitment rule being framed, all
the qualifications which were hitherto deemed appropriate in
selection process prior to the framing of the recruitment rule,
would be of no consequence at all.
7. Under such circumstances, to this Court, as noted
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11103/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/08/2025
undefined
hereinabove, the petition being misconceived, there is no
requirement of entertaining the present writ petition and the
same is disposed of as rejected.
(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J)
Bhoomi
