KANDARPKUMAR KRISHNAKUMAR DHOLAKIA Vs. GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal is against the order passed by the learned single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 5688 of 1985 (Reported in 1990 02) GLR 1058). The appellants herein came forward with the Special Civil Application for issue of a writ of mandamus and/or any other writ order or direction quashing and setting aside the results of the appellants at the elimination test held on 30-9-1984 by the Public Service Commission for the purpose of Recruitment to posts of Civil Judges (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrates (First Class) in the Gujarat Judicial Services Class II (Junior Branch) and the appellants have also prayed for a direction to the effect that the appellants be called for interviews to be held for appointment to the said posts.

(2.) It is unnecessary for us to refer to the other prayers made in the Special Civil Application since they are not relevant for the disposal of the Letters Patent Appeal. The learned single Judge of our High Court after property appreciating the examination held by the Pubic Service Commission for eliminating the candidates who have failed in the examination upheld the method adopted by the Public Service Commission and dismissed the Special Civil Application. Aggrieved by the said order of the learned single Judge the appellants have preferred the aforesaid Letters Patent Appeal.

(3.) Mr. J. P. Shah learned Advocate appearing for the appellants contended that holding of the examination for direct recruitment is clearly against the rules provided for such selection and the learned Advocate further contended that direct selection can be made by oral interview and not by holding examination. When the learned Counsel nor the appellants was confronted with the decision rendered by the Division Bench of our High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 230 of 1980 dated 24-8-1981 Mr. Shah distinguished this decision by staling that the said decision arose while interpreting the rules framed under Art. 309 of the Constitution of India; while the present case is in respect of the rules framed under Art. 234 of the Constitution of India. Mr. Shah also submitted that if this Bench is not agreeable to his submission made above and wants to follow the finding of the Division Bench in the aforesaid Letters Patent Appeal no further arguments will be put forth for maintaining the present Letters Patent Appeal. Article 234 of the Constitution reads as under: