Gujarat High Court
Rajeshkumar Kantilal Rami(Deceased) vs Chairman on 10 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH Court OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1044 of 2010
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
RAJESHKUMAR KANTILAL RAMI(DECEASED) & ANR.
Versus
CHAIRMAN, GPSC & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HARESH J TRIVEDI(927) for the Petitioners
MS SURBHI BHATI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 3,5 - State
MR DG SHUKLA(1998) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,4 - GPSC
MS PRACHI UPADHYAY for MR VAIBHAV A VYAS(2896) for the
Respondent(s) No. 6,7 - Private Respondents
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 10/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1.1 The present petition, under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner with the
following main prayers.
"29A. Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a
writ in the nature of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, orders or direction and be
pleased to quash and set aside order dated
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
03.12.2008, passed by Respondent No.5 and be
pleased to open sealed cover to give appointment
to the post of Assistant Manager Class-II and/or;
(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue
necessary directions to compel GAD to declare its
own decision without being influenced by others
with reference to petitioner's representation at the
earliest to declare the petitioner appointed to the
post of Assistant Manager Class-II.
(C) Pending admission and final disposal of this
petition, your Lordships may be pleased to direct
the respondent to give adhoc appointment to the
post of Assistant Manager Class-II as an interim
relief till the matter gets finally decided;
(D) Your lordships may be pleased to grant cost of
this petition;
(E) Your Lordships may be pleased to pass such
other and further order as the nature and
circumstances of the case may require."
1.2 The petitioner has added prayer 29AA with the
permission of the Court vide order dated 14.09.2012, which is
as under.
"29AA. Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a
writ in the nature of quo warranto to against
Mr.Premsingh B. Kanvar and Mr.Bholusingh G.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
Thakur because they do not possess required
supervisory experience as prescribed in original
advertisement No.29/2000 of Gujarat Public
Service Commission and have presented false and
fabricated experience certificates. The respondents
authorities may also be directed to prosecute them
under criminal law and recover entire salary paid
both of them read interest and negligent officers
who did not check their papers properly may be
brought under disciplinary action in accordance
with law."
1.3 Thereafter, further prayer 29BB is also added by
the petitioner with the permission of the Court vide order
dated 08.11.2023, which is as under.
"29BB. Your Lordship may be pleased to issue
appropriate direction to respondent Nos.3 and 5 to
fix pay scale available to the husband of the
applicant to the post of Assistant Manager Class-
II with effect from 09.08.2012 and pay difference
of pay with all other consequential benefits AND
Be further pleased to direct the respondent Nos.3
to 5 to fix the pension of applicant's husband and
pay difference upto 30.06.2020 with further
direction to pay the family pension to the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
applicant calculated on the basis of revised pay
scale on the basis of new pay scale."
2. It is noted that during the pendency of this
petition, the petitioner was promoted from the post of Copy
Holder to the post of Proof Reader vide order dated
16.11.2013. It is further noted that the petitioner has
retired by way of superannuation on 30.06.2020 from the post
of Senior Examiner Class-III. It is also noted that during the
pendency of this petition, the petitioner has expired on
22.08.2023, therefore the widow being the heir of the
petitioner is joined as petitioner with the permission of this
Court vide order of dated 20.10.2023 and she, therefore,
carries out the cause.
3. Heard learned advocates.
4.1 Learned advocate Mr. Haresh Trivedi for the
petitioner has submitted that the action of the respondent of
rejecting the claim of the petitioner to the post of Assistant
Manager Class-II on the ground of lack of experience is
unlawfully, arbitrarily and ab-initio void; and that the
respondents have deliberately misinterpreted their own
advertisement and experience of supervisory nature or
capacity and thereby the petitioner is negatively and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
arbitrarily discriminated; and that the learned Single Judge
of this Court, before passing interim orders, had called for
necessary work order records to satisfy himself, which was
placed before him, and the same were shown to the learned
counsel for the Gujarat Public Service Commissioner ('the
GPSC' for short) at that time; and that this fact is ignored
by the respondent authorities while deciding the matter of
the petitioner; and that all the certificates and credentials
show that the petitioner is more capable even that of the
Supervisor and he had worked as such and this fact was
known to his superiors, which was reflected in the previous
communication of General Administration Department ('GAD'
for short) and Industries and Mines Department, both; and
that the Industries and Mines Department changed its stand
just because the GPSC mechanically disagreed; and that the
action of the respondent is violative to the fundamental
rights guaranteed to the petitioner under the Constitution of
India; and that admittedly, there is a play while
reconsidering the case of petitioner in light of the directions
given by the Court at the time of Special Civil Application
No.11418 of 2000; and that this is a fit case for kind
intervention of this Court; and that in direct appointment on
merit, the principles of feeder cadre do not apply but the
competence has to be judged based on qualification and
nature of experience; and that the respondents have acted
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
mechanically; and that it is not open for the authorities to
disbelieve the certificates of supervisory and other experience
issued by the concerned authorities, which have given no
objection after proper verification; and that the petitioner was
one of the fittest candidates for the most advertised from the
point of view of qualification, experience and knowledge but
he was wrongly rejected at the threshold.
4.2 He has relied upon the opinion of the Deputy
Secretary, Industries and Mines Department dated 07.09.2008
forwarded to the GPSC regarding the experience of the
petitioner in view of the order passed in Special Civil
Application No.11418 of 2000.
He has also relied upon the opinion / remarks of
the department regarding the experience as well as the words
'supervisor capacity', which is mentioned in the advertisement
in question.
He had also relied upon the various work orders
issued to the petitioner by the Government Printing
Department.
4.3 He has further submitted that the respondents
ought to have considered the contents of the representation
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
dated 09.08.2012, which are self-explanatory in nature and
done justice themselves in the interest of justice.
4.4 With regard to the prayer of issuing writ of quo
warranto against respondents No.6 and 7 is concerned, he has
submitted that respondents No.6 and 7 do not possess proper
experience, which is evident from the clarification received
from their previous employer; and that it also shows that the
certificate produced by them is fake, fabricated and frivolous
and they have cheated and misled the authorities in believing
that they possessed requisite experience, but in fact they did
not possess; and that these kind of persons should be
criminally prosecuted by the GPSC and the authorities; and
that they should be thrown out from the employment; and
that the salary paid to them should be recovered with
interest and negligent officers who did not check their
certificate properly should also be punished after proper
disciplinary action; and that both these candidates i.e.
respondents No.6 and 7 do not possess proper supervisory
experience and knowledge and they were not qualified; and
that the writ of quo warranto should be issued against them
in the interest of justice for the simple reason that they are
unlawfully holding the post.
4.5 He has also submitted that the deemed date
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
promotion may be granted to the husband of the present
petitioner as national promotion to the post of Assistant
Manager Class-II with effect from date of his representation
dated 09.08.2012 and further be pleased to pay difference of
pay scale with all other consequential benefits till date of his
retirement that is 30.06.2020; and that the petitioner may be
paid difference of pension admissible to her husband on the
basis of notional promotion, together with her family pension,
on the revised pay scale with all other consequential benefits.
He has submitted that this petition may be allowed.
4.6 In support of his submissions, he has relied upon
the proceedings of Special Civil Application No.11418 of 2000,
the papers of which are on record. He has also relied upon
the decisions in the case Regional Manager, Central Bank of
India versus Madhulika Guruprasad Dahir reported in (2008)
13 SCC 170, more particularly paras 14 to 16 thereof, which
read as under.
"14. Similarly, the plea regarding rendering
of services for a long period has been
considered and rejected in a series of
decisions of this Court and we deem it
unnecessary to launch on exhaustive
dissertation on principles in this context. It
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
would suffice to state that except in a few
decisions, where the admission/appointment
was not cancelled because of peculiar factual
matrix obtaining therein, the consensus of
judicial opinion is that equity, sympathy or
generosity has no place where the original
appointment rests on a false caste certificate.
A person who enters the service by producing
a false caste certificate and obtains
appointment for the post meant for a
Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or OBC,
as the case may be, deprives a genuine
candidate falling in either of the said
categories, of appointment to that post, does
not deserve any sympathy or indulgence of
this Court. He who comes to the Court with
a claim based on falsity and deception cannot
plead equity nor the Court would be justified
to exercise equity jurisdiction in his favour.
15. An act of deliberate deception with a
design to secure something, which is
otherwise not due, tantamounts to fraud.
Fraud is a conduct either by letter or words,
which induces the other person or authority
to take a definite determinative stand as a
response to the conduct of the former either
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
by words or letter. [See: R. Vishwanatha
Pillai V/s. State of Kerala & Ors., 2004 2
SCC 105 Bank of India (supra), Addl.
General Manager (supra), Derry V/s. Peek,
1889 14 AC 337, Ram Preeti Yadav V/s. U.P.
Board of High School and Intermediate
Education & Ors., 2003 8 SCC 311 and
Bhaurao Dagdu Paralkar V/s. State of
Maharashtra & Ors., 2005 7 SCC 605].
16. In Ram Chandra Singh V/s. Savitri
Devi & Ors., 2003 8 SCC 319, this Court
had observed that fraud is anathema to all
equitable principles and any affair tainted
with fraud cannot be perpetuated or saved by
the application of any equitable doctrine."
5.1 Per contra, learned AGP Ms.Surbhi Bhati for
respondents No.3 and 5 - State Authorities has vehemently
opposed this petition. She has drawn the attention of this
Court towards the affidavit in reply filed by the State
Authorities and has submitted that since the petitioner did
not possess the requisite qualification and experience for the
post of Assistant Manager Class-II, the respondent authorities
has not selected him at that time. She has submitted that
the advertisement was of the year 2000 and we are now in
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
the year 2025; and that the petitioner was promoted during
the pendency of this petition in the year 2013 from the post
of Copy Holder to the post of Proof Reader; and that the
petitioner has retired from service by way of superannuation
on 30.06.2020; and that the action of the respondent
authorities is just and proper; and that the respondents have
not violated the fundamental rights of the petitioner. She has
also submitted that initially, the petitioner has challenged the
action of the respondent authorities of not permitting the
petitioner to appear in the examination by way of Special
Civil Application No.11418 of 2000, however, by way of
interim relief, the Coordinate Bench of this Court has
directed the respondents to permit the petitioner to appear in
the examination and has also directed the respondents to
keep the result of the petitioner in sealed cover. She has
submitted that the petitioner was appeared and his result
was kept in sealed cover by the respondents. Ultimately, that
petition has been disposed of by the Coordinate Bench of this
Court as withdrawn, with some directions; and that the
respondents authorities have followed those directions and
finally passed the impugned order dated 03.12.2008.
5.2 She has also submitted that as per Clause - 4(c)
of the Notification dated 21.05.1996 issued by the Industries
and Mines Department, which is regarding eligibility for
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
appointment by direct selection to the posts mentioned in
Rule-2 that, a candidate shall have not less than five years'
experience in supervisory capacity in modern composing,
printing and complete knowledge of binding system as well
as industrial cost accounting and estimating the knowledge of
production management, cost control, factory administration in
respect of labour problem in a big printing unit after
obtaining education qualification.
5.3 She has also relied upon Clause - 2(g) regarding
non-gazetted supervisory staff which means junior Assistant
Manager, Office Superintendents, Head Clerks, Store Keepers
(of Directorate of Printing and Stationery only), Senior
Estimator, Senior Auditors, Supervisors (book depot), Mono
Mechanic, Lino Mechanic, Machine Mechanic, General
Mechanic, Head Mechanic, Overseers (of all Sections such as
composing, printing, binding, standard, duplicating Unit),
Head Examiner, Head Draftsman, Head Photographer and has
submitted that the petitioner was not holding any of the
above when he applied for the post in question. She has
submitted that the petitioner was holding a post of Copy
Holder only.
5.4 She has vehemently submitted that as per the
Recruitment Rules, the petitioner is having an experience of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
Copy Holder, which is not a supervisory post, therefore, the
petitioner was not called for interview conducted by the
GPSC at the relevant point of time, but as per the direction
of the Coordinate Bench of this Court, he was permitted to
appear in the examination.
5.5 She has further submitted that as per the earlier
directions of this Court, the petitioner made a representation
to the Chief Secretary, GAD, which, in turn, was forwarded
to the recruiting department i.e. the Industries and Mines
Department. She has also submitted that the recruiting
department opined that the certificate and experience of the
petitioner is not as per the recruitment rules, therefore, the
opinion of the GPSC was asked for and the GPSC had
opined that, the petitioner was not having the requisite
public necessary experience of the supervisory post, which is
required for the post in question / the advertisement in
question.
5.6 She has further submitted that the petitioner was
heard personally by the GAD on the second representation,
therefore, the GAD has decided to take a second opinion
from the GPSC and therefore, the said representation along
with all the relevant papers of the file has been sent to the
GPSC through the recruiting department i.e. the Industries
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
and Mines Department. However, the GPSC stood with its
earlier decision that the petitioner was not possessing
requisite / necessary experience of supervisory posts, as asked
for in the advertisement in question. She has submitted that
therefore, the recruiting department i.e. the Industries and
Mines Department has rejected the representation of the
petitioner with reasoned order, after getting an opinion from
the GPSC and approval from the GAD and passed the
impugned order dated 03.12.2008.
5.7 She has also submitted that thereafter also, the
petitioner had made a third representation to the respondents
and the respondents authorities have informed the petitioner
that the order dated 03.12.2008 was already being served to
the petitioner and the stand of the department would be the
same.
5.8 She has also submitted that the petitioner is
having an experience of the post of Copy Holder only. She
has relied upon Rule - 490, Chapter XIV of the Printing and
Stationery Manual, wherein the role / experience of Copy
Holder is explained. She has submitted that the experience
certificates which are produced by the petitioner cannot be
considered for the supervisory post, as the same cannot be
said that the petitioner was having an experience of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
supervisory post because when a Copy Holder provided an
order for charge of supervisory post then only it can be said
that the Copy Holder was given a charge of supervisory post;
and that in the present case, no such order for charge of
supervisory post issued by the respondents in favour of the
petitioner, therefore, the petitioner cannot be said that he
has experience of supervisory posts, as required in the
advertisement in question.
5.9 In support of her submissions, she has relied upon
the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of : (i)
Sajid Khan versus L Rahmathullah reported in 2025 INSC
251 = 2025 (0) AIJEL-SC 74782 and (ii) State of Assam
versus Arabinda Rabha reported in 2025 INSC 334 = (2025)
7 SCC 705 and (iii) Maharashtra Public Service Commission
versus Sandeep Shriram Warade & Others reported in 2019
(0) AIJEL-SC 64171 = (2019) 6 SCC 362. She has submitted
that this petition may be dismissed.
6.1 Learned advocate Mr.Deepak Shukla for
respondents No.1, 2 and 4 - the Gujarat Public Service
Commission authorities has also vehemently opposed this
Petition. He has submitted that the post in question is
governed by the recruitment rules known as the Assistant
Manager and Assistant Director (Technical), Class-II (in the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
Directorate of Government Printing and Stationery),
Recruitment Rules, 1996; and that as per Rule - 4(c), to be
eligible for the post in question and as the petitioner was
not fulfilling the requirement of experience, he was not called
for the interview; and that for looking to the post of Copy
Holder where the petitioner was working, it is not the post
in supervisory cadre; and that various experience is required
in the supervisory capacity for being eligible for the post in
question; and that the petitioner does not have the
experience of industrial cost accounting and estimation in the
supervisory capacity; and that the petitioner has also no
experience of production management, cost control and factory
administration in respect of labour problems in the
supervisory capacity as required under Clause - 4(c) of the
Notification dated 21.05.1996; and therefore, the decision of
the GPSC that the petitioner did not possess the requisite
qualification / experience for the post in question is just and
proper; and that the decision of the GPSC on the ground of
petitioner is lacking of experience is a decision of an expert
body and therefore, this Court should not interfere in the
matter.
6.2 In support of his submissions, he has relied upon
the decision in the case of K.V. Garasiya versus Babubhai N.
Gavit reported in 1998 (3) GCD 2461. He has submitted that
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
otherwise also, the entire selection process has been over and
the result has been declared in the year 2001 itself and the
Commission has already recommended the names of selected
candidates to the State Government in the year 2001; and
that even otherwise the GPSC had also asked for the opinion
of the Government and the Government had opined that the
experience of the petitioner is not of the supervisory category
and therefore, the experience of the post of Copy Holder of
the petitioner was not considered by the GPSC as required;
and that the matter involving the issue of experience of the
petitioner only and therefore, a question to be decided in the
petition is as to whether a petitioner possesses experience in
supervisory capacity as required under Clause - 4 or not; and
that for deciding this issue, the experience of the petitioner
and necessary documents produced by the petitioner were
required to be considered for coming to the conclusion that a
petitioner possesses requisite experience in supervisory
capacity or not. He has submitted that this petition may be
dismissed.
7.1 Learned advocate Ms. Prachi Upadhyay for learned
advocate Mr.Vaibhav Vyas for the private respondents i.e.
respondents No.6 and 7 has also vehemently opposed this
petition. She has drawn the attention of this Court towards
the affidavit in replies filed by respondents No.6 and 7 and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
has submitted that the petitioner has no locus standi to
challenge the appointment of respondents No.6 and 7, as the
petitioner was not eligible. She has further submitted that
respondents No.6 and 7 participated in the recruitment
process and it is the authorities, who have selected the
respondents No.6 and 7 on merit and after scrutinizing all
the relevant documents as well as requirements prescribed in
the advertisement in question; and that there is a huge
delay of about 10 years by the petitioner to challenge the
appointment of respondents No.6 and 7, as the advertisement
in question was of the year 2000 and the present petition is
filed by the petitioner in the year 2010 and the petitioner
has impleaded as party respondents being respondents No.6
and 7 in this petition in the year 2012.
7.2 She has further submitted that the respondents
No.6 and 7 were meeting with all the eligibility criteria,
including the criteria regarding experience, as prescribed in
the recruitment rules as well as the advertisement, therefore,
the authorities have rightly selected and appointed them on
the post in question after considering the same. She has also
submitted that the GPSC, being the authority, is the expert
body with regard to the eligibility criteria prescribed in the
advertisement as well as recruitment rules; and that the
experience of the candidates is accessed by the interview
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
committee, which consists of expert in the said field and one
of the members of the interview committee is the Director,
Government Printing and Stationery. She has further
submitted that after being appointed by the respondent
authorities, the respondents No.6 and 7 have already
completed more than 10 years of service, by this time, on
the post of Assistant Manager Class-II and are due for being
promoted on the next higher post of Manager Class-I,
therefore, the action of the petitioner of challenging the
appointment of respondents No.6 and 7, at this stage, is
nothing but gross abuse of process of law for obvious mala
fide considerations.
7.3 She has further submitted that even otherwise, if
the petitioner has some grievance against respondents No.6
and 7, the same could be ventilated by filing a separate
petition, however, the same could not have been challenged
in this petition, wherein the subject matter of the original
petition is altogether different.
7.4 She has further submitted that the petition being
Special Civil Application No.13969 of 2013 has been filed by
the petitioner, mainly seeking prayer against respondents
No.6 and 7 only. However, that petition is disposed of as
having become infructuous according to learned advocate
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
Mr.Trivedi for the petitioner at that time. She has admitted
that this petition may be dismissed.
8. In rejoinder to the affidavit in reply filed by
respondents No.6 and 7, the petitioner has submitted that
the respondents No.6 and 7 got appointment by producing
fake and fabricated bogus certificates which cannot be relied
upon and GPSC replied that, they do not check credentials
certificate of the candidate; and that the certificate of
experience did not reveal all details like basic pay and full
pay with description / nature of work in case of respondent
which required; and that as per law, a person who has done
cheating or fraud have got benefits of any kind by telling
lies and producing bogus document, like experience certificate,
can be prosecuted on civil or criminal side or both, hence,
there is no question of any limitation; and that the petitioner
can sue the respondents No.6 and 7 after specific knowledge
about the wrong or unlawful act committed by him, hence,
the limitation would not start prior to specific knowledge and
the petitioner previously had no ideas with conclusive
information; and that the expert body was made to fall into
error because they had no idea about fraudulent conduct of
the respondents No.6 and 7 and the authorities had not
checked the legality / validity and genuineness of all the
certifications produced by respondents No.6 and 7; and that
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
the GPSC should have checked everything before deciding to
appoint respondents No.6 and 7; and that the petitioner was
before this Court most pre time and he could challenge the
appointment of respondents No.6 and 7 only after obtaining
required information. He has submitted that the present
petition may be allowed.
9. I have heard learned advocates for the respective
parties. I have perused the documents available on record,
including the affidavit in reply filed by the respective
respondents.
10. It is noted that the petitioner has retired by way
of superannuation on 30.06.2020. It is also noted that the
petitioner has expired on 22.08.2023, therefore, the widow has
joined as party petitioner and continues to pursue the cause.
11.1 From the record, it transpires that the petitioner
was working with the Government Control Press,
Gandhinagar, as a Copy Holder. The GPSC invited
applications for making an appointment to the post of
Assistant Manager Class-II in Government Printing and
Stationery Department being Advertisement No.29/2000
published on 15.06.2000. There were total 6 posts. In the
said advertisement, educational qualification is specifically
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
mentioned, which is that, (1) A Degree from the recognized
University (2) A Diploma in Printing Technology or Graphic
Arts awarded by the Technical Examination Board or
University or an Institute recognized by the Government (3)
Adequate knowledge of Gujarati. In the very advertisement,
the experience is also specifically mentioned, which is that, a
candidate shall have not less than five years' experience in
supervisory capacity in Modern composing, printing and
complete knowledge of binding system as well as industrial
cost accounting and estimating the knowledge of production
management, cost control and factory administration in
respect of labour problem in big printing unit after obtaining
educational qualifications. Further, in the said advertisement,
the age is also mentioned, which is that the age shall not be
more than 35 years.
11.2 Pursuant to the said advertisement, the petitioner
has made an application on 15.07.2000.
11.3 The GPSC, vide its communication dated
24.08.2000 informed the petitioner that he is not selected for
interview on account of the following reasons.
(1) Being not within the prescribed age limit.
(2) Not possessing the prescribed educational
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
qualification.
(3) Not possessing the prescribed experience.
(4) Your application, having been received after
the last date prescribed for receipt of
application, in the Commission's Office.
(5) Not possessing the prescribed physical
standard.
(6) Having not paid the prescribed fees along
with for application.
(7) You have not produced necessary certificates
in support of your education / experience.
(8) Having not completed internship on the last
date of receipt of application.
(9) Not being SEBC/SC/ST Candidate.
11.4 Admittedly, the petitioner has submitted a
requisite certificate dated 12.09.2000 regarding his experience
to the GPSC on 14.09.2000.
11.5 The GPSC has, vide its communication dated
23.10.2000, informed the petitioner that since he does not
possess the requisite experience of supervisory cadre, he is
not entitled to call for the personal interview.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
11.6 Therefore, the petitioner has preferred a petition
before this Court being Special Civil Application No.11418 of
2000 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
quashment of the communications dated 24.08.2000 and
23.10.2000 as well as for direction to the respondents to call
the petitioner for interview for the post in question subject to
the result of petitioner as an effective interim relief during
the pendency of that petition.
11.7 The Coordinate Bench of this Court (Coram : H.K.
Rathod, J.) has passed an interim order dated 20.11.2000,
whereby, the Court, on being primarily satisfied about the
petitioner's eligibility, directed the respondents to allow the
petitioner to appear and attend the oral interview that was
conducted by the respondent during the pendency of that
petition and the result of the oral interview of the petitioner
was ordered to be kept in a sealed cover.
11.8 Accordingly, as per the directions of this Court,
the petitioner was permitted by the respondents to appear in
the examination and also conducted the oral interview of the
petitioner and his result was kept in a sealed cover by the
GPSC.
11.9 Finally, the Coordinate Bench of this Court
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
(Coram: C.K. Buch, J.) vide order dated 06.09.2001, while
disposing of the matter, directed the department to open the
sealed cover and act thereupon accordingly.
11.10 Against the said order dated 06.09.2001, the GPSC
has preferred an appeal being Letters Patent Appeal No.255
of 2002, wherein, vide order dated 05.02.2003, the Division
Bench of this Court has admitted the said appeal with a
direction that the said sealed envelope is again called for
today for perusal of the Court and is directed to be sent
back to the Registrar for keeping it in safe custody. On the
very same day, the Division Bench of this Court has, vide
order dated 05.02.2003, recorded on Civil Application No.3891
of 2002, passed the following order.
"The order of the learned Single Judge,
recorded in Special Civil Application No.11418 of
2000, dated 06.09.2001, shall stand stayed till
further orders. It will be open for the appellant to
take further action, which will be subject to the
right and interest of the respondent original
petitioner.
It is hereby accordingly, ordered that, you,
your servants and agents, be and are hereby
directed to stay the execution, operation and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
implementation of the order of the learned Single
Judge (Coram : Mr.Justice C.K. Buch) recorded in
Special Civil Application no.11418 of 2000, dated
06.09.2001 till further orders. It is further ordered
that, it will be open for the appellant to take
further action, which will be subject to the right
and interest of the respondent original - petitioner."
11.11 Ultimately, the said order was set aside by the
Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.255
of 2002 vide order dated 06.04.2005 and the matter was
remanded back to the Single Judge for adjudication on
merits. The order dated 06.04.2005 is as under.
"This appeal by the Chairman and the
Secretary of Gujarat Public Service Commission
(for short, "the Commission") is directed against
order dated 6th September, 2001 passed by the
learned Single Judge whereby he directed the
Commission to declare the result of the interview
of respondent no.1 for the post of Assistant
Manager, Grade-II in Government Press.
A perusal of the record shows that in
response to advertisement No.29 of 2000 issued
by the Commission for recruitment of Assistant
Manager, Grade-II in Government Press,
respondent no.1 who was then holding the post of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
Copy Holder in the Government Press and was
posted at Gandhinagar submitted an application
in the prescribed format. The same was rejected
by the Commission on the ground that he does
not possess the requisite experience. This was
conveyed to him by the Deputy Secretary of the
Commission vide letter dated 24th August, 2000.
The representation made by respondent no.1,
which was accompanied by some document
showing that he possesses the experience of
having worked in different departments of the
Government Press was rejected by the
Commission vide letter dated 23rd October, 2000.
Thereupon, respondent no.1 filed writ petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by
impleading the Chairman and the Secretary of
the Commission and the Chief Secretary,
Government of Gujarat as party-respondents for
issuance of a direction to them to consider his
candidature and appoint him on the post of
Assistant Manager, Grade-II.
By an interim order dated 20th
November, 2000 a learned Single Judge directed
the Commission to interview respondent no.1 with
the condition that the result of his interview may
be kept in a sealed cover. Accordingly, respondent
no.1 was interviewed, but the result of his
interview was not declared.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
When the matter was listed for final
adjudication another learned Single Judge, after
taking into consideration the affidavit filed by
respondent no.1 that no departmental proceedings
were pending against him directed the
Commission to open the seal cover and take
action as per the result of the interview. For the
sake of convenience, order dated 6th September,
2001 passed by the learned Single Judge is
reproduced below:-
"Heard the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner. Today, he has tendered affidavit in
compliance of the interim order passed by this
Court on 20.11.2000. The affidavit tendered today
is self explanatory and the same is in consonance
with the order passed by this Court and the
result of interview taken by the GPSC for the
post of Assistant Manager Class-II, Government
Printing Stationary held on 23rd August, 2001.
The petitioner was interviewed by the GPSC and
the result of the interview committee has been
put into sealed cover as per the order passed by
this Court on 20-11-2000.
Today, by way of affidavit, the petitioner
has declared that no departmental proceedings are
pending against the petitioner and he has
intimated this fact to the GPSC vide letter dated
5.9.2001. It is submitted that the GPSC is also
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
provided with the copy of the affidavit dated
28.8.2001 which is tendered today. Substantive
relief is granted by this Court at the time of
passing interim order and as there is no counter
to the averments made in the petition. Therefore,
the department can be directed to see that the
sealed cover be opened and GPSC as well as
concerned department may act the sealed cover.
Directions accordingly."
Shri S.K. Patel, learned counsel for the
appellants argued that the learned Single Judge
committed a serious error by directing the
opening of the seal cover without even going into
the issue of eligibility of respondent no.1 to be
considered for appointment as Assistant Manager,
Grade-II. He invited our attention to Rule 4 of
the Assistant Manager and Assistant Director
(Technical), Class-II (in the Directorate of
Government Printing and Stationery), Recruitment
Rules, 1996 (for short, "the Rules") and argued
that the Commission had rightly rejected the
application of respondent no.1 because he did not
possess the requisite five years experience on the
date of submission of application.
Shri Patel emphasised that respondent
no.1, who was holding the post of Copy Holder,
which is a Class-III post cannot be said to be
working in a supervisory capacity and, therefore,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
he cannot claim to possess five years experience
in a supervisory capacity in modern composing,
printing and complete knowledge of binding
system as well as industrial cost accounting and
estimating, the knowledge of production
management, cost control and factory
administration in respect of labour problem in a
big printing unit, as contemplated by Clause (c)
of Rule 4 of 1996 Rules and argued that the
decision of the Commission not to entertain his
candidature does not suffer from any legal
infirmity.
Shri R.D. Raval, learned counsel for
respondent no.1 argued that even though the
order under challenge does not contain discussion
on the issue of his client's eligibility to be
considered for the post of Assistant Manager,
Grade-II, we should presume that the learned
Single Judge was fully satisfied that he possessed
the requisite experience and decline interference
with the direction given by him for opening the
sealed cover. Learned counsel took us through the
documents marked Annexure-C, E and F to show
that even though respondent no.1 was holding the
post of Copy Holder, he was assigned various
supervisory functions and was entrusted with the
task of training the staff of the Government
Press. Shri Raval also made a grievance that
while passing interim stay, the Division Bench
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
had entertained some of the documents produced
by the learned counsel for the appellants though
the same were not made available to him.
We have considered the submissions of
the learned counsel for the parties and perused
the record.
At the outset, we deem it proper to
observe that without filing an application under
Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code,
learned counsel for the appellants should not
have placed on record the documents which did
not form part of the pleadings of the Special
Civil Application. In our considered view, before
any additional evidence can be taken into
consideration at the appellate stage, the party
seeking to produce such evidence must file proper
application and obtain necessary order from the
Court. In the present case, learned counsel for
the appellants produced some documents without
filing an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of
the Civil Procedure Code and, in this manner,
respondent no.1 was deprived of his right to
make submissions with reference to those
documents.
Notwithstanding the above, we are
inclined to accept the argument of the counsel for
the appellants that the learned Single Judge
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
should not have directed opening of the seal cover
by the Commission without going into the issue
of eligibility of respondent no.1 to be considered
for the post of Assistant Manager Grade-II. Rule
4 of the Rules, which lay down the condition of
eligibility for recruitment on the post of Assistant
Manager, Grade-II and Assistant Director
(Technical), Class-II reads as under:-
"4. To be eligible for appointment by
direct selection to the posts mentioned in rule 2,
a candidate shall -
(a) not be more than 35 years of age;
(b) possess a degree from the recognised
University and possess a diploma in printing
technology or Graphic Art awarded by the
Technical Examination Board or a University or
an Institute recognised by the Government;
(c) have not less than five years' experience
in Supervisory capacity in modern composing,
printing and complete knowledge of binding
system as well as industrial cost accounting and
estimating, the knowledge of production
management, cost control and factory
administration in respect of labour problem in a
big printing unit after obtaining educational
qualification; and
(d) possess adequate knowledge of Gujarati;
Provided that the upper age limit may be
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
relaxed in favour of a candidate possessing
exceptionally good qualification or experience or
both.
Provided further that the upper age limit
may be relaxed in favour of a candidate who is
already in the service of the Government of
Gujarat in accordance with the provisions of
Gujarat Civil Service Classification and
Recruitment (General) Rules, 1967, as amended
from time to time."
In the present case, the Commission, had
refused to entertain the candidature of respondent
no.1 on the ground that he does not possess the
requisite experience. However, without going into
the legality and correctness of this decision in the
context of the relevant rule, the learned Single
Judge directed the Commission to declare the
result of his interview by assuming that the only
impediment in his selection was some
contemplated or pending enquiry. We are sure
that if attention of the learned Single Judge had
been drawn to the fact that the candidature of
respondent no.1 was rejected by the Commission
on the ground of non-fulfillment of one of the
conditions of eligibility and not the pendency of
the departmental inquiry then he would certainly
examined that aspect and decide whether interim
order passed by the learned Single Judge on 21st
November 2000 for interview of respondent no.1
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
should be given effect to by directing the
Commission to open the seal cover.
For the reasons mentioned above, we held
that the direction given by the learned Single
Judge to the Commission to open the seal the
cover is legally sustainable.
In the result, the appeal is allowed. The
order of the learned Single Judge is set aside
and the matter is remanded for fresh adjudication
of the Special Civil Application filed by
respondent no.1. The case may now be listed
before an appropriate Single Bench on May 9,
2005.
While disposing the appeal in the manner
indicated above, we give liberty to the original
petitioner (respondent no.1 herein) to make
suitable amends in the Special Civil Application
by impleading Gujarat Public Service Commission
as party-respondent and also give liberty to the
latter to place on record additional documents, if
any, to justify its decision not to entertain the
candidature of respondent no.1."
11.12 The matter was thereafter heard by the Coordinate
Bench of this Court (Coram : S.R. Brahmbhatt, J.), wherein,
the petitioner has submitted that he will make appropriate
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
representation before the authorities concerned and the
authorities connection may decide the said representation in
stipulated time. Accordingly, the petitioner has seek
permission to withdraw that petition with a liberty to file
fresh petition in case of adverse orders from the respondents.
11.13 Accordingly, upon the statement made by the
petitioner at the bar, that petition was disposed of as
withdrawn vide order dated 21.11.2007 with the following
directions.
"9(i) The petitioner is at libert y to make
appropriate representation to the concerned
Secretary in the General Administration
Department, State of Gujarat.
(ii) The concerned Secretary in the General
Administration Department is hereby directed to
decide the representation, if any, preferred by the
petitioner, within reasonable time. Representation
is to be decided in consultation with the Public
Service Commission in light of the Recruitment
Rules for the post in question and other relevant
material, in accordance with law.
(iii) The respondents are expected to dispose
of the representation of the petitioner preferably
within six months from the date of receipt
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
thereof."
11.14 The petitioner has thereafter made a
representation before the appropriate authority on 04.02.2008.
11.15 There were many correspondences made by the
GPSC, the Industries and Mines Department, the GAD and
the petitioner thereafter.
11.16 Finally, the Industries and Mines Department has,
vide its impugned order dated 03.12.2008, rejected the claim
of the petitioner for the post in question vide its reasoned
order.
11.17 It is this order / communication impugned dated
03.12.2008, which is challenged by the petitioner before this
Court in this petition with the prayers noted hereinabove.
12. From the above, this Court finds that the only
issue which falls for determination before this Court would be
that whether the petitioner possesses the requisite experience,
as per the advertisement in question, or not.
12.1 It is noted that indisputably, the petitioner was
working as a Copy Holder. Therefore, it would be fruitful to
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
refer to Rule 490 of Chapter XIV of the Printing and
Stationery Manual, wherein, the role / experience of Copy
Holder is explained, which is as under.
"490. Copy Holder - Each reader is given a
copy holder whose duty is to read the 'copy' given
and to do readers work occasionally when
required. It is not permissible for the reader to
read the manuscript and give the proof correction
work to his copy holder. A copy holder should be
able to read MSS in English, Gujarati and
Devnagari and should possess good knowledge of
grammar, composition, spelling and punctuation."
12.2 Further, at this stage, the Notification of the
Industries and Mines Department dated 21.05.1996, more
particularly Clause 4(c) thereof would also be fruitful to refer
to, which is as under.
"4. To be eligible for appointment by direct
selection to the posts mentioned in Rule-2, a
candidate shall -
(c) have not less than five years' experience
in supervisory capacity in modern composing,
printing and complete knowledge of binding
system as well as industrial cost accounting and
estimating the knowledge of production
management, cost control, factory administration
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
in respect of labour problem in a big printing
unit after obtaining education qualification."
12.3 The hierarchy of promotion in the department
where the petitioner was working, would be that the lowest
cadre was the Copy Holder, then one step upper is a Reader,
then a Senior Examiner, then a Head Examiner and then
the Assistant Manager.
12.4 The advertisement in question was for the post of
Assistant Manager Class-II. It is a direct recruitment by way
of public advertisement.
12.5 The experience as well as educational qualification
and age have been specifically mentioned by the GPSC in the
advertisement in question noted above.
12.6 Initially, the GPSC has found that the petitioner
was not selected for interview on the various grounds,
including the lack of requisite experience.
12.7 At this stage, the notification of the Industries and
Mines Department dated 21.05.1996, more particularly, Clause
5 thereof would be fruitful to refer to here, which is as
under.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
"5. To be eligible for appointment by direct
selection to the posts mentioned in Rule 2, a
candidate shall -
(a) not be more than 35 years of age;
(b) possess a degree from the recognized
university and possess a diploma in printing
technology or Graphic Art awarded by the
Technical Examination Board or a University or
any Institute recognized by the Government;
(c) have not less than five years' experience
in Supervisory capacity in modern composing,
printing and complete knowledge of binding
system as well as industrial cost accounting and
estimating, the knowledge of production
management, cost control factory administration in
respect of labour problems in a big printing unit
after obtaining educational qualification; and"
12.8 It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner has
done varies activities in various departments by the orders of
the authorities, but it cannot be said that the petitioner was
possessing requisite qualification of supervisory post / cadre
for five years, as required under the advertisement in
question.
12.9 It is noted that vide resolution dated 07.08.1991 of
the Industries and Mines Department, it is decided that the
cadre of Overseer will be considered as supervisory cadre.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
Indisputably, the petitioner was holding the post of Copy
Holder and the said post of Copy Holder is not considered as
supervisory cadre, as required under the advertisement in
question.
12.10 At this stage, it would also be fruitful to refer to
the Notification dated 15.03.1985 issued by the industries,
Mines and Power Department, more particularly Clause 2(g)
thereof, whereby it is specifically clarified that which posts
are to be considered as supervisory staff / cadre. The said
Clause is as under.
"2(g). Non-gazetted supervisory staff means
Junior Assistant Managers, Office Superintendents,
Head Clerks, Store Keepers (of Directorate of
Printing and Stationary only), Senior Estimators,
Senior Auditors, Supervisors (book depot), Mono
Mechanic, Lino Mechanic, Machine Mechanic,
General Mechanic, Head Mechanic, Overseers (of
all Sections such as composing, printing, binding,
standard, duplicating unit), Head Examiner, Head
Draftsmen, Head Photographer."
12.11 On being directed by the Coordinate Bench of this
Court vide order dated 21.11.2007, the representation of the
petitioner was considered in consultation with the GPSC, the
GAD and other appropriate authorities and ultimately, the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
respondent authorities has passed the impugned order dated
03.12.2008 by holding that the certificates and documents
attached by the petitioner with his representations are not
considered as the experience of supervisory capacity for five
years, as required under the advertisement in questions as
well as the same are not in consonance with the Assistant
Manager Class-II Recruitment Rules and therefore, the
representations of the petitioner have been rejected.
13.1 At this stage, it would be fruitful to refer to the
decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sajid Khan
(supra), more particularly paras 18 to 21 and 23 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
Yadav v. State of U.P., (2021) 12 SCC 390 :
"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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
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. 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
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
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
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, 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
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)"
23. Even if some ground exists for the High
Court to exercise judicial review, the standard
that the High Court would adopt, as
indicated in Uma Shankar Sharma v. Union
of India, (1980) 3 SCC 202. would be to see
that, the terms and conditions of service are
[intended to be] construed reasonably, and too
technical a view can defeat the essential
spirit and intent embodied in them. In light
of the law re-iterated above and considering
the fact that the employer has not objected
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
to the appellants diplomas, it was not
appropriate for the High Court to take a
technical view of the matter and set aside
the appointments."
13.2 It would also be fruitful to refer to the decision of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arabinda Rabha
(supra), more particularly para 35 thereof, which reads as
under.
"35. It cannot be gainsaid that the factors of
"when", "which", "what", "who" and "how" that are
associated with a recruitment/selection process is
the prerogative of the recruiting authority and the
selectors; however, at the same time, the process
has to be conducted consistent with statutory
provisions governing the same, if any, as well as
principles of absolute fairness and complete non-
arbitrariness. Though it is true that the law does
not postulate a fetter on the authority of the
employer-State and it is within the domain of the
Government when to initiate a process of
recruitment for public employment, either
according to recruitment rules or even in the
absence thereof, it is for the Government of the
day to decide in which manner it proposes to
conduct selection, what would be the various
stages the candidates aspiring for appointment
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
have to pass through in order to be placed in the
select list, who would be the selectors, and how
weightage is to be given to each of the testing
methods, a great deal of credence is lent to a
process if it is fairly and transparently conducted
in accordance with rules, whatever be its source,
without the slightest hint of any bias or
favouritism or nepotism. Normally, it is not for
the courts to interfere unless the process smacks
of mala fides. However, the right to be considered
for public employment being a Fundamental
Right, it would be safe and prudent to have
recruitment rules to govern the process of
selection so that the best possible talent is
appointed in public service. Obviously, assessing
the merit of the candidates aspiring for public
employment on the basis of a prescribed standard
would not only provide a level playing field for
each of them, the excellence of any institution to
which the appointment is to be made would
depend directly on the proficiency of its
members/staff and that would, in turn, depend on
the quality and merit of those who offer
themselves for selection and ultimately get
selected, necessitating the selection to be
conducted without any hidden taint or masked
mala fides. Last but not the least, having regard
to present times when corruption has been held
to be a walk of life by certain responsible citizens
of the country, it would have been desirable if
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
the process of recruitment of 104 Constables were
conducted after framing of recruitment rules and
also prescribing a written examination to keep
the process absolutely above board."
13.3 It would also be fruitful to refer to the decision of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sandeep Shriram
Warade (supra), more particularly para 10 thereof, which
reads as under.
"10. 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 at 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, 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
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."
14. At the cost of repetition, it is noted that during
the pendency of this petition, the petitioner was promoted by
the department vide order dated 16.11.2013 from the post of
Copy Holder to the Proof Reader. It is also required to be
noted that the petitioner has retired by way of
superannuation on 30.06.2020. At that time, the petitioner
was Senior Examiner Class-III.
15.1 With reference to the role of the GPSC in the
entire selection process is concerned, on being sending the
requisition by the Industries and Mines Department, the
GPSC has issued public advertisement in the Gujarat
Samachar, a daily newspaper, for the post in question on
15.06.2000. The said selection is governed by the Recruitment
Rules known as the Assistant Manager and Assistant
Director (Technical), Class-II (in the Directorate of
Government Printing and Stationery), Recruitment Rules,
1996. As per Rule-4(c) of the Rules, 1996, the petitioner was
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
not fulfilling the requirement of experience and therefore, he
was not called for the interview, as various experience is
required in the supervisory capacity for being eligible for the
post in question and admittedly, looking to the post of Copy
Holder, where the petitioner was working, is not the post in
supervisory cadre. Indisputably, the petitioner does not have
the experience of industrial cost accounting and estimation as
well as production management, cost control and factory
administration in respect of labour problems in the
supervisory capacity under Rule-4(c) of the Rules, 1996.
15.2 At this stage, it would be fruitful to refer to the
decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
"16. A perusal of the Recruitment Rules
framed for the post in question under proviso
to Art. 309 of the Constitution on 22/02/1972
indicates that there is no provision specifying
the dates from which qualification of
experience will be considered or computed.
The relevant rule is Rule 3 which can be
reproduced as under : -
"3. To be eligible for appointment by
direct selection to the post mentioned
in Rule 2. A candidate must -
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
(a) be not more than 35 years of age;
and
(b) possess a Bachelor's Degree either
in Arts, Science, Agriculture,
Commerce, Law or Engineering of a
recognised University or an equivalent
qualification, with about 5 years'
experience in any responsible post in
an administrative capacity : Provided
that preference may be given to a
candidate possessing experience in
Land Acquisition matters, Town
Planning and Municipal Laws.
Provided, further that the age limit
may he relaxed in favour of a
candidate possessing exceptionally good
qualification or experience or both;
provided further that the upper age
limit may be relaxed in case of
Gujarat State Servants in accordance
with the provisions of the Gujarat
Civil Services Classification and
Recruitment (General) Rules, 1967 as
amended from lime to lime."
Now, therefore, to consider the question
whether the experience gained by the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
petitioner before graduation can be taken into
consideration or not, reference may be made
to Rule 8. sub-rule (8) of the Gujarat Civil
Services Classification and Recruitment
(General) Rules, 1967 which reads as under :-
"(8) Where the qualifications prescribed
for any service or post include a
qualification as to practical experience
for a given period and applications are
invited for such service or post the
period of practical experience shall be
computed -
(a) Unless otherwise provided in
Recruitment Rule from the date on
which requisite qualifications are
obtained.
(b) With reference to the last date
fixed for receipt of such application."
In this regard, clause (b) of sub-rule
(8) makes it very clear that the qualification
as to practical experience shall be computed
with reference to the last date fixed for
receipt of such application, which is
1/04/1996, in the instant case before us. In
this regard, the proviso to Rule 3 of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
Recruitment Rules in question, if read, also
indicates the intention of the Government of
deriving support from the provisions of
Gujarat Civil Services Classification and
Recruitment (General) Rules. 1967 and.
therefore, when there is no specific provision
in these Rules, reference has to be made to
the provisions of the Gujarat Civil Services
Classification and Recruitment (General)
Rules, 1967. Even otherwise it is settled
proposition of law where there is no specific
provision in special rules framed for
recruitment to a post, the general rules shall
prevail.
17. In the instant case, it is also to be
noted that the special Recruitment Rules for
the posts in question do not specifically
provide for computing the date from which
the requisite qualification of experience is to
be computed, and therefore, clause (a) of sub-
rule (8) of Rule 8 of Gujarat Civil Services
Classification and Recruitment (General)
Rules, 1967, will come into play which
specifically provides that unless it is
otherwise provided the period of practical
experience shall be computed from the date
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
on which the requisite qualifications are
obtained which is 10/04/1992 in the instant
case.
18. The outcome, therefore, is that the
practical experience that can be taken into
consideration in the case of respondent No. I
would be from 10/04/1992 to 1st April, 1996
which h would be definitely less than five
years qualifying experience. To be exact, it
would be three years and eight months. In
this regard, it is also to be considered that
the argument advanced by Mr. Parmar that
the G.P.S.C. has power to relax the
experience requirements as conceded to by
the other side. Such relaxation is given to
the extent of one month for every year of
experience, and therefore, also the relaxation
can at the most be for four months and if
that is added the total experience would be
four years which would be again less than
the requisite qualifying experience. This being
so, no error seems to have been committed in
deciding for considering respondent No. 1 as
lacking requisite experience, and therefore,
even if the power to relax was exercised by
the G.P.S.C., it would not have helped
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
respondent No. 1 in any manner. Against
this, it would not be out of place to observe
that when it comes to exercise of discretion
by such authority. Court is not supposed to
sit in appeal while exercising its
extraordinary jurisdiction under Art. 226 of
the Constitution of India and has to be slow
in using its discretion. The period of
experience has to be computed after
graduation unless contrary is provided is also
a proposition settled by the Supreme Court
while deciding the case of N.Suresh Nathan&
Anr. V/s. Union of India and Ors., AIR 1992
SC 564. The contention of Mr. Parmar that
the qualification of experience is not essential
but is only preferential is difficult to be
accepted. If the Recruitment Rule for the post
in question particularly Rule 3 is perused it
makes it abundantly clear that the candidate
to be eligible must possess a bachelor's
degree either in Arts, Science, Agriculture,
Commerce, Law or Engineering with about 5
years' experience in any responsible post in
an administrative capacity. It is, therefore,
very clear that the candidate must possess
both the qualifications, namely, a bachelor's
degree and about 5 years' experience. To
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
overcome this difficulty, it was contended that
the advertisement inviting applications in
Gujarati newspaper averred that the
candidates with about 5 years' experience will
be given preference/priority, and therefore,
that must prevail in the instant case. In this
regard, the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of
the G.P.S.C. makes it clear that the
advertisement published in English was in
consonance with the Recruitment Rules, and
there was a mistake in the Gujarati
advertisement. In our view, such a clerical
error cannot create a situation of overriding
the rules framed under proviso to Art. 309 of
the Constitution of India. Such mistakes can
definitely be corrected as and when noticed.
Such advertisement inviting applications does
not confer a right to the candidates applying
for such posts."
15.3 On the basis of the opinion given by the
Government vide its letter dated 19.10.2002, the experience of
the petitioner is not of the supervisory cadre. Therefore, the
experience of a post of Copy Holder of the petitioner was not
considered by the GPSC as required under the advertisement
in question.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
15.4 For deciding the issue regarding experience of the
petitioner, the documents produced by the petitioner have
been considered by the various authorities and come to the
conclusion that the petitioner does not possess the requisite
experience in supervisory capacity as required under the
advertisement in question. Therefore, since the role of the
GPSC is very limited to the above extent, no relief, more
particularly, the relief as prayed for by the petitioner may be
granted at this stage.
16.1 This regard to the contention of the petitioner of
issuing writ of quo warranto against respondents No.6 and 7,
who are the selected candidates, is concerned, it would be
fruitful to refer to the order passed by the Coordinate Bench
of this Court dated 19.01.2024 recorded on this petition with
Special Civil Application No.13969 of 2013, which reads as
under.
"Mr.Trivedi, learned counsel submits that the
main petition i.e. Special Civil Application
No.21235 of 2016 is not notified alongwith the
present petitions.
Re-list the matter on 1st February 2024.
Registry is directed to notify Special Civil
Application No.21235 of 2016 along with Special
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
Civil Application No.1044 of 2010.
So far as Special Civil Application
No.13969 of 2013 is concerned, according to
Mr.Trivedi, learned counsel, it has having become
infructuous and in case of any difficulty, the
liberty be reserved.
In view of the above, Special Civil
Application No.13969 of 2013 stands disposed of
as having become infructuous. Rule is discharged.
Interim relief, if any, granted earlier stands
vacated forthwith.
In the case of any difficulty, the
petitioner is at liberty to approach this Court."
16.2 It is noted that the petitioner had filed Special
Civil Application No.13969 of 2013 before this Court with the
following main prayers.
"18(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a
writ in the nature of mandamus on the
respondent Government department to arrange to
take necessary disciplinary actions against the
respondent no.6 and 7 (Mr. Kanvar and
Mr.Thakur) and other erring officer who either
did not perform their duty properly and acted
neglecting or deliberately ignored inadequacies of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
respondent no.6 and 7.
(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a
writ of quo warranto against the respondent no.6
and 7 declaring them unlawfully selected usurpers
to the original post of Assistant Manager Class II
in printing and stationary department and be
pleased to order to terminate them in accordance
with law.
(C) Your Lordships may be pleased to order
of recovery and of salary and allowance paid to
respondent no.6 and 7 till date with 9% penal
interest per month thereon.
(D) Pending admission and final disposal of
this petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to
direct the Director of Government of Printing and
Stationary to order Departmental Inquiry, against
the respondent no.6 and 7 and produce report
before this Honourable Court after completing the
inquiry within 6 months, as as to enable this
Honourable court to pass further necessary
interim or final orders in this matter;
(E) Your Lordships may be pleased to grant
any other and further relief as may be deemed
fit and proper in the interest of justice.
(F) Your Lordships may be pleased to grant
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1044/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
costs of this petition."
17. In view of above, this Court finds that the
impugned order dated 03.12.2008 passed by the respondent
authorities is just, legal and proper. There is no perversity or
mala fide in the impugned order. The authorities have rightly
considered all the aspects as well as rules, provisions and
administrative directions in proper sense. The prayers as
prayed for against the respondents as well as against
respondents No.6 and 7 need not be granted under these
circumstances, at this stage.
18. There cannot be any dispute with regard to the
law enunciated in the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court
relied upon by the learned advocate for the petitioner,
however, it cannot be helpful to the petitioner any further in
view of the facts and circumstances of the present case. The
present case does not fall within the purview of that decision
with such facts.
19. For the reasons recorded above, this petition needs
to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly. Rule is
discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J)
M.H. DAVE
