RAVINDRA VITHALBHAI JIYANI Vs. GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Mr. D.G. Shukla, learned advocate waives service of notice of Rule for Respondent No. 1. Mr. Maulik G. Nanavati, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of Rule for Respondents Nos. 2 to 4. On the facts, and in the circumstances of the case, and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the respective parties, the petition is being heard and finally decided, today.

(2.) By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has prayed, inter alia, that a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order be issued, declaring the action of the Gujarat Public Service Commission, in not recommending his name to the State Government for appointment on the post of Lecturer (Chemistry), pursuant to a requisition having been made,as illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory. Further, it is prayed that the decision of the Respondent-authority of not giving appointment to the Petitioner on the post of Lecturer (Chemistry) pursuant to his selection vide advertisement No. 60 of 2006-2007, be quashed and set aside.

(3.) Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that the Petitioner was initially appointed as Lecturer (Chemistry) on Ad-hoc basis on 28-2-2001. He is, at present, working as such in the Government Polytechnic. On 15-5-2006, Respondent No. 1 -Gujarat Public Service Commission ("GPSC" for short) published advertisement No. 60 of 2006-07, inviting applications for the post of Lecturer (Chemistry) (among others) in the Gujarat Education Service, Class-II in Government Polytechnic Colleges. Out of 9 posts of Lecturer (Chemistry) that were advertised, one post was reserved for the SC category candidate, one for an ST category candidate, 2 for SEBC category candidates and 2 for lady candidates in the General category. The Petitioner applied for the post of Lecturer (Chemistry) in the unreserved (General) category. After due procedure, the Petitioner was selected for the post of Lecturer (Chemistry), and his name appeared at Sr. No. 3 in the waiting list. He was intimated in this regard by the GPSC vide communication dated 16-9-2009. Thereafter, candidates whose names figured in the select list were given appointment by the State Government. Out of these candidates, the ones at Sr. Nos. 4 and 5, named, Keyur kumar Balvantray Desai and Kamlesh Kumar Ramkishan Gurjar did not join service, therefore, their appointment orders were cancelled by the State Government vide order dated 19-7-2010, resulting in two posts falling vacant. Vide communication of the same date, that is, 19-7-2010, the State Government asked the GPSC to send names from the waiting list of candidates for appointment to the post of Lecturer (Chemistry). The GPSC recommended the names of two candidates in the waiting list, whose names figured above that of the Petitioner, at Sr. Nos. 1 and 2. As per the recommendation made by the GPSC, the State Government issued appointment orders in favour of those persons, namely, Hemendra Hasmukhrai Bhatt and Lakhdhirsinh Bhavansinh Rathod, on 25-8-2010. Since Lakhdhirsinh Bhavansinh Rathod showed his unwillingness to join service, the State Government cancelled his appointment vide order dated 13-9-2010. In view of the above, one post fell vacant, therefore, vide communication dated 13-9-2010, the State Government once again sent a requisition to the GPSC to recommend the name of the next meritorious candidate from the waiting list. This requisition was received in the office of the GPSC on 15-9-2010. The Petitioner was the next meritorious candidate on the waiting list, whose name could have been recommended by the GPSC. However, the GPSC took the impugned decision that the name of the Petitioner could not be recommended, since the results of the subsequent advertisement No. 199 of 2009-10, dated 16-2-2010, had been published on 23-9-2010 and the waiting list pursuant to the previous advertisement was exhausted. The Petitioner made a representation to the GPSC on 5-10-2010, which came to be rejected. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition.