Rajjabhusen Sakhtsinh Vasava vs State of Gujarat and Another

Abhilasha Kumari, J.—Rule. Mr. Maulik G. Nanavati, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of Rule for the Respondents. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the petition is heard and finally decided.

The Petitioner has preferred this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction, to quash and set aside order dated 10-6-2010 and to issue directions to the Respondents to appoint the Petitioner to the post of Revenue Talati (Class-III), as per order dated 20th March,2010.

Briefly stated, the relevant facts of the case are as follows:

3.1 It is stated in the petition that the Petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Tribe category. Pursuant to advertisement No. 4 of 09 issued by Respondent No. 2 (Gujarat Subordinate Services Selection Board) for filling up the post of Talati (Class-III), the Petitioner had made an application on 14-12-2009, in the Reserved Quota. An examination was conducted by Respondent No. 2 on 14-2-2010. The Petitioner participated in the same and was declared successful on 12-3-2010. By order dated 20-3-2010, the Petitioner was called upon to participate in the Interview which was to be held on 5-4-2010 at 3.0 P.M., along with his original Certificates. The Petitioner remained present on the said date at the stipulated time along with his original Certificates, including the Caste Certificate. On being asked by an Officer of Respondent No. 2, the Petitioner opted to serve in the Districts of Narmada and Vadodara. The Petitioner anticipated that the appointment order would shortly be issued, however, as no such order was issued to the Petitioner, he made necessary enquiries. Thereafter, the Petitioner received order dated 10-6-2010, whereby his candidature was rejected on the ground that he had tick-marked two categories, namely, the Scheduled Tribe category and the Socially and Educationally Backward Class ("SEBC") category in his application Form, which is contrary to paragraph 9(15) of the Advertisement. Being aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition.

Mr. B.S. Brahmbhatt, learned advocate for the Petitioner has submitted that the Petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Tribe category and has submitted a Certificate to that effect. The Petitioner has only tick-marked one category, and that is the Scheduled Tribe category, in his application form. Had the application form of the Petitioner been defective, the Respondents would not have permitted him to appear in the Examination or participate in the Interview. Even the Call Letter for the interview dated 20-3-2010 mentions the category of the Petitioner as "ST". In any case, the Petitioner is eligible and qualified for the post in question and is a meritorious candidate. It is further contended that even assuming that the Petitioner has tick-marked both the Scheduled Tribe and Socially and Educationally Backward Class categories, then, at best, it can be said to be a mistake, which ought to have been considered sympathetically. The said mistake is not a major one warranting cancellation of the candidature of the Petitioner, who is otherwise meritorious and eligible for appointment to the post in question; therefore, the prayers made in the petition may be granted.

The petition has been strongly opposed by Mr. Maulik G. Nanavati, learned Assistant Government Pleader by submitting that the original application Form of the Petitioner clearly indicates that the Petitioner has tick-marked at two places against the categories of Scheduled Tribe and Socially and Educationally Backward Class. It is contended that paragraph 9(15) of the advertisement stipulates that an application form which is defective, shall be rejected at any stage, if it is found, upon verification, that there is a discrepancy in the details filled in by the candidate. Further, in Clause (3) of the Interview Call Letter dated 20-3-2010 it is mentioned that, if the application Form of the candidate is incomplete or defective in respect of the details filled in by the candidate, the selection of said candidate shall stand cancelled and the name of such candidate shall be deleted from the provisional appointment list by considering the candidate to be ineligible. That in the present case as the Petitioner has clearly tick-marked two categories, his application Form has been found to be defective and his candidature has been rightly cancelled by Respondent No. 2. It is further contended by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that in the representation made by the Petitioner, it is stated that there is a possibility that "somebody" might have played mischief with the application Form of the Petitioner, in a malafide manner. However, the said contention is vague and unsupported by any cogent material. Accordingly, it is urged by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that the petition be dismissed.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties and perused the averments made in the petition as well as the material on record. The learned Assistant Government Pleader has produced the original record, including the original application Form submitted by the Petitioner, a photo-copy of which has already been annexed to the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of Respondent No. 2.

On perusal of the original application Form, it is very clear that the Petitioner has made two tick marks in the categories of Scheduled Tribe as well as the Socially and Educationally Backward Class. There does not appear to be any over-writing or tampering on the said application which may lead to a suspicion that some mischief has occurred.

It is clearly mentioned in paragraph 9(15) of the advertisement that an application which is found to be defective in respect of the details mentioned therein would result in cancellation of the candidature of the concerned candidate, at any stage. The same stipulation is reiterated in Clause (3) of the Interview Call Letter dated 20-3-2010, with a further stipulation that in case of any defect being found in the application Form in respect of the details of the candidate filled in therein, the application would be considered as defective and the candidature of such candidate would be cancelled and his name removed from the provisional appointment list, by considering the candidate to be ineligible.

The only submission reiterated by the learned advocate for the Petitioner is that the Petitioner has ticked against one category only, namely, the Scheduled Tribe category. On perusal of the original application, this submission is not found to be correct. It is clear that the Petitioner has ticked against both the categories of Scheduled Tribe and Socially and Educationally Backward Class. As per Clause 9(15) of the advertisement and Clause (3) of the Interview Call Letter, the application of the Petitioner has rightly been found to be defective, resulting in cancellation of his candidature and removal of his name from the provisional appointment list. When it is clearly stipulated in the advertisement that the application form is liable to be rejected on the ground of it being defective, it cannot be said that the Petitioner is unaware of the stipulated requirements which have been published. The submission that the Petitioner may have made a mistake and that a sympathetic view be taken in spite of the same, cannot be accepted as that would amount to deleting/modifying the condition in the advertisement and the Interview Call Letter, which would not be permissible. Though the Interview Call Letter does mention the category of ST (Scheduled Tribe) on it, nothing much would turn on this aspect alone, as it is at the stage of personal interview that the scrutiny of the Certificates and documents of the concerned candidate is carried out. It is at that stage that the discrepancy in the application form of the Petitioner was noticed, resulting in passing of the impugned order which, in the view of this Court, cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary in view of the stipulation in the advertisement and Interview Call Letter. According to Petitioner, he belongs to the Reserved Category and has applied in that category. The defect in his application Form wherein he has tick-marked against both the Reserved Categories of Scheduled Tribe and Socially and Educationally Backward Class, is not one that can be ignored, as he cannot claim two reserved posts, at the same time.

Further, there is no material on record to support the submission of the learned advocate for the Petitioner that mischief has been played with the Petitioner by making the second tick-mark. There is no material on record in support of this submission.

The cumulative effect of the above discussion leads to the conclusion that there is no merit in the petition, which deserves to be dismissed. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Rule is discharged. There shall be no orders as to costs.