VELJIBHAI M DESAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This group of petitions once again bring to the surface the un-ending conflict between the direct recruits and promotees in Gujarat Engineering Service Class I & Class II. This conflict has its deep-rooted cause in unfortunate un-equal prescription of quota by statutory recruitment rules providing initially one post for direct recruit against three for promotees which further came to be reduced to 1 : 4 by amendment of statutory rules. This permissible un-equal treatment brings an element of discontent amongst fresh graduates inasmuch as seats allocable to them in Engineering Services are nominal compared to their counter-part i.e. promotees who get the major chunk of the available seats. Second Cause of this conflict was proviso of Rule 3 prior to its amendment which provided for lapsing of vacancies meant for direct recruits on their non-availability in a recruiting year giving rise to discontent amongst fresh graduates in getting berth in Engineering Service. Third Cause which contributed to the discount of direct recruit was provided by the Gujarat Public Service Commission when it held the second examination for direct selection to the post of G. S. E. Class I and Class II in December 1980 and third examination in February 1982 results whereof were declared in September 1981 and September 1983. L. V. Ashra v. G. P. S. C.

(2.) L. V. Ashra v. G. P. S. C. (Spl. C.A 3820/81 & 5381 - D/- 5-11-84) was thus the first case in the history of litigation of Gujarat Engineering Services in this Court. The Commission had fixed minimum qualifying marks for written as well as viva-voce test. Those candidates who did not secure minimum qualifying marks at viva-voce test were not included in the select-list despite their very good performance at the written test and this action of the Commission gave rise to the first round of litigation in this Court.

(3.) The Division Bench of this Court found that the method adpoted by the Gujarat Public Service Commission in preparing the merit list fixing qualifying marks of viva-voce test and in excluding from the merit list the candidates who have not obtained minimum qualifying marks in viva-voce test was arbitrary unreasonable and unjustified and therefore the Court found that though at that stage entire selection cannot be upset the ends of the justice would be met by directing the Commission to revise the merit list on the basis of aggregate marks in the written as well as viva-voce test ignoring the concept of minimum qualifying marks in viva-voce test. It was further directed that after revising the merit list appropriate recommendation shall be made to the State Government and if the petitioners were entitled to appointment to the posts in question on the basis of inclusion of their names in the merit list such appointments shall be given to them by the State Government. The State Government was also directed to give such persons appropriate seniority in accordance with their rank in the merit list and if necessary it was also directed that they should be given deemed date of appointment without any monetary benefits.