K.V. VADODARIA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The results which were in the sealed covers are produced before this Court by learned advocate Mr. Chaitanya Joshi appearing on behalf of respondent No.3 - Gujarat Public Service Commission and same have been opened in presence of learned advocate Mr. Ratilal Sakaria appearing for the petitioners as well as learned advocate Mr. Chaitanya Joshi appearing for respondent No.3 - GPSC. From the perusal of the said results dtd. 1/12/1998, this Court has found that under the signature of the Chairman and the Members of the Committee, two persons viz. (1) Mr. Kishor Virjibhai Vadodaria (58) and (2) Mr. Jagdish K. Dhanani (57) were held to be suitable candidates since they were permitted to take examination pursuant to the order passed by this Court in the present proceedings.

(2.) Pursuant to the opening of the sealed cover and having found that the petitioner Nos.1 and 3 had successfully undergone the selection process, the facts briefly indicate that the petitioners have approached this Court challenging the validity of the Rules called the Deputy Director of Agriculture and the District Agricultural Officer (except in Gandhinagar and Dangs Districts) Recruitment Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 1987").

(3.) Learned Counsel Mr. Sakaria appearing for the petitioners has taken this Court to the grounds raised in the petition. It is the case of the petitioners that under the Gujarat Civil Services Classification and Recruitment (General) Rules, 1967, the minimum requirement with regard to the educational qualification in graduation, the upper age limit for the post has to be minimum of 28 years. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the post in question requires M. Sc. as the minimum qualification. The minimum age which can be prescribed for this post is 30 years in light of the Rules, 1987. He would submit that if the experience is one of the essential qualifications prescribed for the post, the number of years for which the experience is required to be added for the prescribing of the upper age limit, the minimum age which can be prescribed as the upper age limit could be 35 years and on this count therefore, the Rules, 1987 should be declared as unconstitutional and arbitrary. Referring to the statement of details in case of the petitioner Nos.1 and 3, it is the case of the petitioners that petitioner No.1 completed his graduation in the year 1987 and post-graduation in the year 1990. Looking to the Rules, 1987, post, post-graduation, even if the five years' experience was to be undergone, the petitioners would cross the age limit of 30 and would therefore be ineligible.