DEEPAK Vs. RAJKOT MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these petitions, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, arise out of a common cause of action inasmuch as the advertisement issued by the Rajkot Municipal Corporation (for short 'the Corporation') for appointment of a Municipal Accountant. The qualification advertised for the post was that the candidate should possess a qualification in Accountant Technical Course from The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (for short 'the Institute').

(2.) The Rajkot Municipal Corporation issued an advertisement inviting applications for the post of Municipal Accountant to be filled on a fixed pay of Rs.39,200/-. The advertisement specified that the applicant for the post should have passed the Accounting Technician Examination from the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India.The advertisement specified that the applicants should make an application online and the last date of the submission of the application was 26.09.2017. The case of the petitioner is that he passed his Accounting Technician Course in the year 2011. A mark-sheet dated 09.02.2012 is produced in support of his submission that the petitioner passed his examination in the year 2011 anThe advertisement specified that the applicants should make an application online and the last date of the submission of the application was 26.09.2017. The case of the petitioner is that he passed his Accounting Technician Course in the year 2011. A mark-sheet dated 09.02.2012 is produced in support of his submission that the petitioner passed his examination in the year 2011 and the mark-sheet was issued on 09.02.2012. This was produced in order to substantiate that the applicant petitioner was qualified for the post. It was his case that since he had passed his examination on 09.02.2012 he was eligible. A written examination was held for the purposes of selection.

(3.) Mr. Anand Gogia, learned advocate for the petitioner invited the attention of this court to the result sheet issued by the Corporation and the merit list would indicate that the petitioner having secured 76 marks was at merit rank no. 1 whereas the respondent no. 2 having secured 66 marks was at merit rank no. 13. It is the case of the petitioner therefore that he being ranked no. 1 on the merit list, the respondent no. 2 who was much below in rank in merit at Sr. No. 13 could not have been appointed.