RASHMIKABEN BAHECHARBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short facts of the case are that the petitioners, who have obtained admission in PTC after 12th Standard and thereafter on the basis of PTC have applied for the post of Vidhya Sahayak. The challenge by the petitioners in the petition is that the marking criteria for allotting 40 marks to the examination of HSC should not be equated with the examination of SSC and it has been submitted that there should be identical classification for counting of the marks on the basis of SSC examination. It is further the case of the petitioners that the petitioners have secured higher marks in SSC and lesser marks in HSC and if other candidates who have obtained admission in PTC after SSC, for the purpose of appointment of Vidhya Sahayak are to be considered on the basis of the marks in SSC, there is no reason why the petitioners should also be given same treatment. It is the contention of the petitioners that if the marking is reconsidered on the basis of SSC, the petitioners' name would stand above in the merit list and, therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court for challenging the said policy/resolution of the Government and also the order passed by the State Government after the representation was made by the petitioner in pursuance of the order dated 22.11.2000 passed by this Court (Coram: H.K. Rathod, J.) in SCA No.9147 of 2000.

(2.) Heard Mr.Amin, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Desai, learned AGP for the State and Mrs.Pahwa, learned Counsel for Respondent No.3. Nobody appears for the other private respondents.

(3.) As such the scope of judicial review in a matter of appointment based on a particular qualification is by now well-settled. This Court cannot sit in appeal over the decision of the authority providing particular method of marking based on a particular qualification and normally such functions must be left to the executives or academicians, who rather can be said as expert in the field. Unless such decision is absurd on the face of it, normally this Court would not interfere in such matters. If the aforesaid test is taken into consideration and the matter is examined, it does appear that earlier for admission to PTC requirement was passing of 10th Standard i.e. SSC. Thereafter, such qualifying standard for admission to PTC is altered and is made 12th Standard i.e. HSC. With a view to see that some room is also left with the person, who has obtained PTC after passing 10th Standard in the resolution it was provided to allot 40% on the basis of the marks obtained at the examinations of HSC/SSC, as the case may be. It is an admitted position that the petitioner had taken admission in PTC on the basis of HSC marks and not on the basis of SSC marks. Therefore, the qualification of the petitioner is to be considered as per the resolution based on HSC marks plus PTC marks. The contention of the petitioner is that if in respect of other students who have passed PTC based on 10th Standard, the marks to be considered are as that of SSC, the petitioner should also be extended the same benefit for the purpose of consideration for the post of appointment of Vidhya Sahayak. It further appears that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by preferring SCA No.9147 of 2000 and this Court as per the order dated 22.11.2000 had relegated the petitioner to make representation. Such representation is made to the State Government and the same is decided as per the order dated 22.1.2001, copy whereof is produced at Annexure "F". The perusal of the said decision of the State Government shows that since subsequently the qualifying standard of admission to PTC is altered from SSC to HSC, the marks of SSC marks of the students, who have passed PTC after getting admission after completion of SSC are to be considered and in case where the students have passed PTC on the basis of the passing of HSC, the marks of HSC are to be considered. It is further stated that by now based on the said policy about 42000 Vidhya Sahayak are already appointed and, therefore, if any alteration is made in the marking method, it may result into adversely affecting not only the merits, but may result into disturbing the appointment of large number of candidates and, therefore, the decision is taken to reject the representation. Such a decision does not appear to be unjust or arbitrary, because if the criteria provided for appointment is not altered on account of the fact that the appointments of thousands of candidates are already made, the same cannot be termed as unreasonable or arbitrary.