MINAKSHIBEN SHARADCHANDRA RAVAL Vs. GPSC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is filed by the petitioner for the relief that this court shall hold and declare that select list published on 8.9.99 of 57 candidates is erroneous, illegal, contrary to law and Constitution of India and therefore the same be quashed and set aside and in the alternative it is prayed that 10 posts of Assistant Public Prosecutor which are not filled in should be filled in from the lady candidates and the representation to the present petitioner be given in the same.

(2.) . The present petition is filed by the petitioner who has passed her 3rd LL.B Exams in the year 1984 and after obtaining "Sanad" in January 1985 the petitioner started practising as an advocate on Criminal and Civil Side. The case of the petitioner is that on 1.12.1997 an advertisement was issued by the G.P.S.C. for recruitment of Assistant Public Prosecutor. The advertisement bearing No.103 stated that in all there are 67 vacancies of which 34 posts are unreserved and remaining 5 posts for Scheduled Caste, 10 posts for Scheduled Tribe and 18 posts for SEBC of origin of Gujarat are reserved. The advertisement further stated that of all these posts 10 posts of unreserved category, 1 posts for Scheduled Caste Category, 3 posts for Scheduled Tribe Category and 5 posts of SEBC Category are reserved for female candidate.

(3.) . The petitioner submitted that the petitioner appeared in the Written Test held on 16.5.1998 and as the petitioner was successful in the said written test, the petitioner appeared in the oral interview on 13.8.1999. It is the case of the petitioner that on 8.9.1999 the GPSC published a select list of 57 candidates in which name of the petitioner did not find place and therefore the present petition is filed. The petitioner challenge the action of respondent GPSC mainly on the ground that in response to the aforesaid advertisement 1900 to 2000 candidates had applied for and all were called for the written test and out of that written test 222 candidates were declared passed of which 200 candidates were male and 22 candidates were female. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent G.P.S.C. has prepared a list of only 57 candidates and in that list no female candidate is selected. The case of the petitioner is that out of 67 posts though 19 posts were reserved for ladies and no female candidates is selected. The petitioner has submitted that, " it is unfortunate that the written test's result is not declared and the successful candidates are not arranged in the seriatim to their marks and, therefore, it is difficult to know as to how many marks are secured by individual candidate but, the G.P.S.C. is having all the details of the same but, the same is never parted with to the candidate concerned." This seems to be one of the reasons that at one stage the court asked the respondent G.P.S.C. to make available the marks obtained by the petitioner. The petitioner has also stated that " if this result is published or brought before this Hon'ble Court, then certainly, the present petitioner would stand in first 10 in the merits so far as the written test is concerned and when the written test is performed so well, question of any disappointment or unsuccessful in the oral interview is out of question and as aforesaid, the petitioner had performed very well at the time of oral interview."