Gujarat High Court
Sanjaykumar Govindbhai Sumesara vs State Of Gujarat on 20 November, 2025
Author: Nirzar S. Desai
Bench: Nirzar S. Desai
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12099/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.12099 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE :
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
=========================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
YES
=========================================
SANJAYKUMAR GOVINDBHAI SUMESARA & ANR.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
=========================================
Appearance :
MR VAIBHAV A VYAS for the Petitioners.
MR GURSHARANSINGH H. VIRK, GOVERNMENT PLEADER ASSISTED BY MS
DHARITRI PANCHOLI, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent Nos.1,2
MR GURSHARANSINGH H. VIRK, GOVERNMENT PLEADER ASSISTED BY MR
SIMRANJITSINGH H VIRK, RUCHI RAMPURIA AND MAITRI MODI for the
Respondent No.3.
=========================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
Date : 20/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. With the consent of learned advocates appearing for
the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal
today itself. Rule. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.
Gautam waives service of rule on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2
and learned advocate Mr. Simranjitsingh H. Virk waives service of
rule on behalf of respondent No.3.
2. By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12099/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025
undefined
grant of relaxation to the SC/ST candidates in the minimum
qualifying marks by prescribing the same to be 35 marks being the
minimum qualifying marks, and accordingly, to consider the case of
the petitioners for the promotion to the cadre of Armed Police Sub-
Inspector, Class-III.
3. The facts as stated in the petition and canvassed by
learned advocate Mr. Vaibhav Vyas are as under :-
3.1 According to the petitioners, Gujarat Sub-ordinate
Service Selection Board (GSSSB) had issued an advertisement
No.200/2021-22 dated 14.2.2022 whereby the applications for
appointment to the post of Armed Police Sub-Inspector (PSI), Class-
III (Mode-2) was invited by promotion through the Special
Competitive Examination. The application was required to be made
through proper channel and as per the advertisement, there were
178 posts which were sought to be filled in. The aforesaid
appointment to the post of Armed Police Sub-Inspector, Class-III is
governed by the Recruitment Rules known as Reserve Police Sub-
Inspector / Armed Police Sub-Inspector, Class III, Recruitment
Rules, 2020. As per the case of the petitioners, such appointment
to the post of Armed Police Sub-Inspector, Class-III is made by
three different modes i.e. (i) by promotion, (ii) by promotion of a
person on the basis of the Special Competitive Examination, and
(iii) by temporary transfer on deputation. The ratio for the purpose
of three modes would be 5:4:1 respectively. For the purpose of
such recruitment, the Rules are framed whereby the method of
Special Competitive Examination for promotion is regulated. The
said Rules are known as Reserve Police Sub-Inspector / Armed
Police Sub-Inspector, Class III (Special Competitive Examination)
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12099/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025
undefined
Rules, 2021.
3.2 As per the Rules, the examination is required to be held
in two successive steps, namely, Physical test and Written test. The
written test consists of two types of test i.e. Objective type written
test and Subjective type written test. As the petitioners were
fulfilling all the criteria, the petitioners applied for the post and
upon the examination of objective type written test was concluded,
the result of the said test was published on 22.8.2025 and the
petitioner No.1 along with few other candidates preferred a
petition being Special Civil Application No.6560 of 2025 whereby
the petitioners have challenged the publication of final answer keys
which according to the petitioners was incorrect. The said petition
was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 8.5.2025 whereby
the petitioners were directed to make a representation and the
respondents were directed to take a decision thereupon.
3.3 Ultimately, the respondent Board had published the
merit list on 22.8.2025 and as at the time of publication of the final
merit list, according to the petitioners, the respondent Board has
not given any relaxation in merit to the candidates belonging to the
reserved category and, therefore, the present petition is preferred
with the prayer which is already stated in the foregoing paragraph.
3.4 As per the Rules, the minimum qualifying standard is to
obtain 40% marks and the petitioners who belong to reserved
category, they want it to further relax it to 35% marks in each
papers. That is how the present petition is preferred.
4. The matter was listed before this Court on 11.11.2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12099/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025
undefined
and on that day, the matter was heard extensively. However, as
learned advocate Mr. Vyas could not point out that which right of
the petitioner is violated and, therefore, the matter was adjourned.
The order dated 11.11.2025 passed by this Court reads as under :-
"At the request of learned Advocate, Mr. Vyas,
appearing for the petitioners, list this matter on
18th November, 2025, at 11:00 a.m., on the top of
the Board, so as to enable him to produce rules or
the constitutional provisions, whereby, he wants to
canvass that the petitioners have a vested, accrued,
inherent or statutory right to claim reservation to
lower down the qualifying marks to the extent of 35
marks, from the minimum qualifying marks, i.e. 40,
which is prescribed by the recruiting authority."
5. Thereafter, the matter was listed on 18.11.2025 and on
account of leave note filed by learned advocate Mr. Vyas, the
matter could not be taken up and hence, the matter was adjourned
to today and today, learned advocate Mr. Vyas, during the course
of submissions, submitted that of course, the petitioners cannot
have any vested accrued inherent or statutory right to claim a
reservation to lower down the qualifying marks to the extent of
35%, however, according to learned advocate Mr. Vyas, such
qualifying marks of 40% is the marks which would uniform
qualifying marks for all category candidates including general
candidates and reserved candidates and, therefore, the very
purpose behind providing the reservation is frustrated.
6. Learned advocate Mr. Vyas further submitted that such
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12099/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025
undefined
action of the respondents can be termed as an arbitrary action and,
therefore, the relaxation is required to be provided to the reserved
category candidates in its true letter and spirit. Learned advocate
Mr. Vyas relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of N. Nagaraj and others v. Union of India and
others, (2006) 8 SCC 212 , more particularly paragraphs 97 to 99
and 108. However, at the time of conclusion of submissions,
learned advocate Mr. Vyas ultimately submitted that as per
paragraph 108 of the said judgment, even the proviso to Article 335
also provides that the qualifying marks or standards of evaluation
for reservation in promotion or in a case of providing relaxation to
the same, would be a matter of discretion of the State Government
as the State Government only could be said to be empowered to
relax the qualifying marks or standard for reservation in matters of
promotion. Therefore, though it is a matter of discretion of the
State Government, the State was expected to exercise that
discretion in favour of the reserved category candidates by
lowering down the qualifying marks to the extent of 35%.
7. According to Mr. Vyas, in respect of Unarmed Police
Constable in respect of similar advertisement, for general category
candidates, the qualifying marks were 40 whereas for SC and ST
candidates, the qualifying marks were kept at 35 whereas the
present recruitment for the post of Armed Police Sub-Inspector
(PSI), Class-III (Mode-2), despite both the cadres are from Police
Force, such reservation or relaxation to the extent of 35% was not
provided in the recruitment in question and, therefore, in view of
the above arbitrary action of the respondents, such action is
required to be rectified by directing the respondents to lower down
the relaxation in qualifying marks to the extent of 35%.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12099/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025
undefined
Except the above submissions, no other submissions
were made by learned advocate Mr. Vaibhav Vyas and he
ultimately prayed for allowing the petition to issue suitable
directions to the State Government to lower down the qualifying
marks to the extent of 35% in respect of reserved category
candidates for the post in question.
8. Mr. Gurusharansingh Virk, learned Government
Pleader appearing with Ms. Dharitri Pancholi, learned Assistant
Government Pleader appearing for the respondents vehemently
opposed the petition and submitted that none of the decisions
either of this Court or the Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken view
that claiming relaxation in the matter of recruitment can be termed
as a matter of right. He further submitted that to determine the
standard, be it educational or otherwise or qualifying marks is an
absolute prerogative of the Recruiting Body and even if powers of
relaxation is there, the exercise of such power is a matter of
discretion of the State Government. In the instant case, Rule 7
itself provides for 40% as qualifying marks and after due
deliberation, the aforesaid benchmark was set while framing the
Rules. Therefore, when the respondent - State has stick to that
Rule and qualifying marks are prescribed according to the Rules
and in absence of any challenge to the Rules, no such prayer to
relax the qualifying marks can be entertained.
9. Mr. Virk relied upon the decision of the Division Bench
of this Court in the case of Patel Jignaben Maheshbhai v.
Gujarat Subordinate Service Selection Board, delivered on
14.2.2022 in Letters Patent Appeal No.154 of 2022 in Special
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12099/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025
undefined
Civil Application No.12362 of 2018 wherein the Division Bench
while affirming the view of the learned Single Judge dismissed the
appeal preferred by the original petitioner by observing that "we
do not find any case to tinker with such eligibility criteria
prescribed by an expert body by way of judicial review in exercise
of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Clause
15 of the Letters Patent."
10. Mr. Virk then relied upon the decision of the coordinate
Bench of this Court in the case of Chiragkumar Subhashchandra
Bhatia and Pritikaben Amrutlal Sartana and others v. State
of Gujarat and another, delivered on 3.7.2025 in Special Civil
Application No.1672 of 2018 and allied matters wherein while
dismissing the petition, the coordinate Bench observed that the
petitioners are misreading the instructions and seeking relaxation
in qualifying marks below the minimum 40% marks which is not
permissible. Further, as the petition was filed at a belated stage,
the coordinate Bench observed that the petitioners have no right to
challenge the same at a later stage and that too when they are
declared non-successful in the process.
11. Mr. Virk further submitted that the recruitment has
taken place as per the Rules and Rule 7 provides for minimum 40%
marks as qualifying marks and as the respondent - State has
strictly adhered to the Rules, such action of the State Government
cannot be termed as illegal and as the State Government has acted
in consonance with the Rules, the petition is absolutely
misconceived and is filed by unsuccessful candidates and,
therefore, the same deserves to be dismissed.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12099/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025
undefined
12. Mr. Virk further submitted that the advertisement was
published on 14.2.2022. Thereafter, at every stage, there were
challenges to the recruitment process and lastly, the recruitment
process went ahead only after this Court decided Special Civil
Application No.8740 of 2022 and allied matters in the case of Patil
Jivankumar Dhanraj and others v. State of Gujarat vide common
oral judgment dated 7.1.2025. Thereafter, the result was published
in the month of August 2025 and thereafter unsuccessful
candidates have chosen to prefer this petition only as one more
attempt to stall the process of recruitment or to interrupt the same
and, therefore, this Court may not entertain this petition and
dismiss the same with heavy costs.
13. I have heard learned advocates appearing for the
respective parties and perused the record. On perusal of the
record, I found that the advertisement for recruitment to the post
in question i.e. Armed Police Sub-Inspector (PSI), Class-III (Mode-
2) was published as back as on 14.2.2022. Thereafter, at every
stage, petitions were filed. Some petitions were filed in the year
2022 i.e. Special Civil Application Nos.8740 of 2022 and allied
matters whereby some candidates sought a relief that they may be
held entitled to participate in the recruitment process on account
of their past experience. Not only that, once the aforesaid petitions
were dismissed vide order dated 7.1.2025, objective type test was
held, the answer key to the same was subject matter of challenge
to another set of petitions filed by petitioner No.1 and some other
candidates being Special Civil Application No.6560 of 2025.
Ultimately, the said petitions were also disposed of vide order
dated 8.5.2025 and thereafter, upon publication of result, after
almost three and half years from the date of publication of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12099/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025
undefined
advertisement, the present petition was preferred.
14. Despite making best efforts and arguing the matter for
sometime, learned advocate Mr. Vaibhav Vyas could not point out
either by way of any provision in the Rules or by way of any
decision that seeking relaxation in qualifying marks is a matter of
right of the candidates. On the contrary, by pointing out a decision
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Nagaraj and
others v. Union of India and others (Supra), he conceded that
it is a matter of discretion left to the State Government as to
whether to lower down the minimum prescribed qualifying marks
or not. However, Mr. Vyas pointed out that for the recruitment to
the post of Unarmed Police Constable, qualifying marks for the
reserved category candidate is kept at 35 and, therefore, on that
ground, it is a matter of discrimination between two class of Police
Officers and, therefore, the same may not be permitted.
15. As far as the aforesaid submission is concerned, at this
juncture, Mr. Virk has clarified that the Rules are also framed by
different authorities, as the present Rules are for reserved and
Armed Police Force, whereas the Rules for Unarmed Police force is
framed by the Police Recruitment. Mr. Virk further clarified that
both the recruitment are undertaken by two different authorities
and in respect of two different services which are different cadres
of Police Force and, therefore, looking to the profile attached to
their job, the Rules are different and, therefore, when there are
different Rules operating in respect of different Police Force, the
standard or criteria for recruitment are bound to be different. It is
not the case of the petitioners that in respect of same cadre, there
are two different Recruitment Rules operating and, therefore, it
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12099/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025
undefined
does not lie in the month of the petitioners to say that the Rules
meant for other cadre which operate in respect of altogether
different cadre which performs different duties on the ground and
by taking into consideration those Rules, the relaxation may be
given to the present petitioners as well. Therefore, the aforesaid
submission made by learned advocate Mr. Vyas cannot be accepted
and, therefore, the same is rejected outrightly.
16. As far as the decisions cited by learned Government
Pleader Mr. Virk is concerned, in similar set of facts, of course in
respect of different recruitment, when the question about
qualifying marks arose, the Division Bench of this Court in the case
of Patel Jignaben Maheshbhai v. Gujarat Subordinate Service
Selection Board, delivered on 14.2.2022 in Letters Patent
Appeal No.154 of 2022 in Special Civil Application No.12362
of 2018 (Supra), has observed in paragraph 7 as under :-
"7. We are in total agreement with the
observations made by the learned Single Judge. The
recommendations that are made in the minutes of
the meeting which are relied upon by the learned
advocate for the appellants and the
recommendations / instructions given by the G.A.D.
are not in form of rules and minimum eligibility
standard of 40% for the post of Live Stock Inspector
Assistant cannot be termed as arbitrary or
discriminatory in any manner. The advertisement in
question as observed hereinabove clearly prescribes
for minimum eligibility of 40% for the competitive
written examination and has rightly observed by the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12099/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025
undefined
learned Single Judge, the same is eminent and
rational prescriptions in the eye of law. The
recruiting agency has followed the prescribed law
and has not changed the game in between, as from
the beginning in the advertisement itself minimum
marks proscribes for all categories is 40%. We do
not find any case to tinker with such eligibility
criteria prescribed by an expert body by way of
judicial review in exercise of powers under Article
226 of the Constitution of India and Clause-15 of the
Letters Patent. The appeal being bereft of any
merits, the same deserves to be dismissed. The
appeal is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be
no order as to costs."
17. Similarly, the coordinate Bench of this Court in the case
of Chiragkumar Subhashchandra Bhatia and Pritikaben
Amrutlal Sartana and others v. State of Gujarat and another,
delivered on 3.7.2025 in Special Civil Application No.1672 of
2018 and allied matters (Supra), observed in paragraphs 5.6, 6
and 7 as under :-
"5.6 The petitioners are the disabled persons
having 40% disability of low vision. They are
claiming relaxation in passing marks which is
prescribed by the respondent authorities. Under the
circumstances, it would be fruitful to refer to the
decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Suo Motu Writ
Petition (Civil) No.2 of 2024 in Re : Recruitment of
Visually Impaired in Judicial Services and cognate
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12099/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025
undefined
matters reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 481
decided on 03.03.2025. The relevant observations
made by the Hon'ble Apex are that mere existence
of vacancies cannot be a ground to claim relaxation
in marks. Laying down a minimum cutoff for
interview is legally permissible. Further, the Hon'ble
Apex Court has observed that it may be permissible
for the Government to prescribe a reasonably lower
standard for Scheduled Casts / Scheduled Tribes /
Backward Classes - consistent with the
requirements of efficiency of administration - it
would not be permissible not to prescribe any such
minimum standard at all. While prescribing the
lower minimum standard for reserved category, the
nature of duties attached to the post and the
interest of the general public should also be kept in
mind. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in
Para : 50 as under :-
"50. Merely by the fact that some more posts were
advertised and they are lying vacant, it could not
have been a ground to relax the minimum marks for
interview after the interview has already been held.
It would not have been appropriate to do so and the
High Court has objected to relaxation of minimum
passing marks in viva voce examination in its reply
and as the power to relax is to be exercised by the
High Court and since it has opposed such a prayer
on reasonable ground and the institutional objective
behind such prescription, we are not inclined to
direct the High Court to relax the minimum marks."
6. In view of above facts and circumstances of
the case as well as keeping in mind the observations
made by the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Division
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12099/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025
undefined
Bench of this Court, this Court finds that these
petitions are devoid of merit. The petitioners have
no right to challenge the procedure once they have
adopted it. In the present case, the petitioners have
complete knowledge about the norms / rules /
procedure of the recruitment process. It is not that
the respondent authorities have changed the rules
of game midway of the recruitment process. The
petitioners are misreading the instructions and
seeking relaxation in qualifying marks below the
minimum 40% marks, which is not permissible.
Therefore, the petitioners have no right to challenge
the same at later stage, that too when they declared
unsuccessful in the process. These petitions
therefore need to be dismissed.
7. Under the circumstances, these petitions are
dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief granted
by this, if any, stands vacated."
18. The aforesaid decisions would be squarely applicable to
the facts of the present case as it also lays down a principle that
such relaxation is impermissible as the same would amount to
tinkering with the Rules framed by the authorities. Therefore, in
the facts of the present case as well, such relaxation as prayed for
by the petitioners cannot be granted as the framing of Rules and
setting the qualifying standard and whether to grant relaxation or
not is purely a matter which would fall within the domain of
Recruiting Body.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12099/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025
undefined
19. In view of the above, the present petition is devoid of
any merits and, therefore, the same is required to be dismissed and
the same is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(NIRZAR S. DESAI,J)
SAVARIYA
