PANKAJKUMAR NARENDRABHAI VAGHELA Vs. GUJARAT VIDHYAPITH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the prayer of the petitioner is to direct the respondent Gujarat Vidhyapith to appoint the petitioner on the sanctioned post of Multi-Tasking Staff with all consequential benefits.

(2.) The facts in brief would indicate that an advertisement was issued by the respondent Vidhyapith for the post of Multi-Tasking Staff (MTS). Of the posts advertised, 9 were for unreserved candidates. The case of the petitioner is that on he having successfully undertaken the written examination was placed at the 3 rank, total marks being 56. Of the 9 posts that were advertised, 7 had applied out of which 4 were declared unqualified and 3 were declared having passed.

(3.) Mr. Aditya Gupta, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner would submit that having found himself on the merit list and having ranked at Sr. No. 3, the petitioner ought to have been appointed on the post of MTS. Inviting the attention to the list at page 28 of the petition, it was Mr. Gupta's submission that the application of the ratio of 1:3 in accordance with the recruitment rules of 2018 and thereby reducing the number of vacancies under contention to 2 and placing the petitioner on the waiting list was contrary to law inasmuch as there was no valid or a reasonable cause not to appoint the petitioner. Relying on Rules of 2018, particularly reading Rule 12(d) and (f) of the Gujarat Vidyapith (Deemed University) Non Teaching Staff Recruitment Rules, 2018, Mr. Gupta would submit that that these rules are set into motion only at the stage of interviews. Moreover, therefore such rules cannot be applied to the petitioner who was not selected pursuant to an interview but had only undertaken a written test and therefore Rule 12(d) clearly would not apply to the petitioner.