GOR @ RAJGOR DIPAKKUMAR PRABHASHANKAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsels for the parties. Looking to the controversy as it being in a narrow compass the request of counsel for the petitioner was accepted to decide the matter finally and hence as the pleadings are over it was inquired of learned AGP as to whether he would waive service of rule, which he fairly submitted that he will waive. Hence RULE. Rule is waived by learned AGP Mr. Rahul Dave on behalf of respondent No.1 State.

(2.) THE petitioner has approached this Court by way of this petition invoking Article 14, 16 and 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking declaration that the petitioner is eligible and entitled to be treated as SEBC Candidate and be given all the opportunities for further processing his candidature for the post of Sub Inspector, Class-III in Prohibition & Excise Department pursuant to the advertisement No.7/10 dated 7/5/2010 and other incidental benefits.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner invited this Court's attention to the documents annexed with the petition and submitted that the certificate of SEBC issued by the competent authority in favour of the petitioner is not challenged or is not in any manner doubted by anyone. The certificate of non-creamy layer issued by the competent authority in the first instance on 11/5/2010 is based upon the documentary evidences produced. The entire controversy as raised is on account of the discrepancy in the surname as his father's surname is 'Rajgor' in the SEBC certificate also candidate's surname is shown to be "Rajgor" and for the first time in non-creamy layer certificate without making any reference to the surname SEBC certificate is issued which ought not to have been challenged in any manner as it is not the case of the respondent in any manner that the petitioner is not the same person in whose favour SEBC certificate is inuring. The certificate issued by the authority indicating that the petitioner belonged to SEBC category though contains surname "Rajgor" but not containing the surname "Rajgor" in non-creamy layer certificate should not have been objected so as to deprive the petitioner of his precious opportunity of competing in the examination or interview. The denial to the petitioner for appearing in the interview appears to be non-application of mind and hence the same is assailed by way of this petition.