Dineshbhai V. Kodiyatar vs The Chairman Gujarat Public Service Commi. and 3

Jayant Patel, J.—The present appeal is directed against the order dated 21.02.2012, passed by the leaned Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 5875 of 2011, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition. We have heard Mr. Sanchela, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant - Original Petitioner and Mr. Shukla, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 1, upon advance copy.

As such it is an admitted position when the petitioner applied for the post, he had declared his category as S.E.B.C.. Even, when the Form was filled up for the Second time, he had declared his category as S.E.B.C. It is also an admitted position that after filling up of the form, at the time of preliminary examination / test as well as regular written test, he pursued the matter as if he belonged to the S.E.B.C. Category and by claiming right as S.E.B.C. Category candidate. Thereafter, the petitioner wanted to seek alteration of his category from S.E.B.C. to Schedule Tribe (S.T.), which is not permissible as per the decision of the Apex Court in the case of " J & K Public Service Commission Vs. Israr Ahmad and Ors.", 2005(12) SCC 498, and more particularly, the observations made in Para-5 thereof, which reads as under;

We have considered the rival contentions advanced by both the parties. The contention of the first respondent cannot be accepted as he has not applied for selection as a candidate entitled to get reservation. He did not produce any certificate along with his application. The fact that he has not availed of the benefit for the preliminary examination itself is sufficient to treat him as a candidate not entitled to get reservation. He passed the preliminary examination as a general candidate and at the subsequent stage of the main examination he cannot avail of reservation on the ground that he was successful in getting the required certificate only at a later stage. The nature and status of the candidate who was applying for the selection could only be treated alike and once a candidate has chosen to opt for the category to which he is entitled, he cannot later change the status and make fresh claim. The Division Bench was not correct in holding that as a candidate he had also had the qualification and the production of the certificate at a later stage would make him entitled to seek reservation. Therefore, we set aside the judgment of the Division Bench and allow the appeal. No costs.

We have considered the reasons recorded by the learned Single Judge, at Para-9, and in our view, if, the reasons recorded are examined in the light of the above referred legal position, it cannot be said that any error has been committed.

On the aspect of so called discrimination by pointing out the case of Parbat A. Chavda, the learned Single Judge has, after examination of the record of the G.P.S.C., found that Parbat A. Chavda had altered his category prior to the conducting of the examination, whereas, the petitioner has not done so. Therefore, it cannot be said that, though, the petitioner is similarly situated, different treatment was given to him by the G.P.S.C.. In view of the aforesaid, we find that no case is made out for interference. Hence, the appeal is DISMISSED.