R.S. BHATT Vs. GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred, inter alia, with a prayer to quash and set aside the communication dated 13.11.2007, issued by respondent No.1 - Gujarat Public Service Commission ("GPSC"), whereby, the candidature of the petitioner for recruitment on the post of Assistant Director/ Administrative Officer, ClassII, has been rejected.

(2.) A short, but pertinent question arises for the consideration of the Court in the present petition, in the following factual matrix. The GPSC issued Advertisement No.180/200607 for recruitment on the post of Assistant Director/ Administrative Officer, ClassII. This advertisement was published in the newspapers on 06.12.2006. The last date for submission of applications was 05.01.2007. The first requirement for the said post, as per the Administrative Officer / Assistant Director/ Manager (Publication Stationery) Recruitment Rules, 1982 ("the Recruitment Rules" for short), insofar as direct selection is concerned, is that the candidate should not be more than 35 years of age. However, provision has been made in the Rules to relax the age limit under certain circumstances, with which we are not concerned in the present petition, as the petitioner was within the prescribed age limit at the time he made the application. The second requirement is that the candidate must have passed a degree examination from a recognized University or its equivalent. The petitioner meets with this requirement as well, as he possesses a degree of Bachelor of Commerce from the Gujarat University and is also a law graduate from the same University. The third qualification required for the post, which is relevant in the present case, is that the candidate must have administrative experience of about five years in a Government or semiGovernment institution or commercial concern. Insofar as this requirement is concerned, it is the case of the petitioner that he joined service under the State Government in the Department of Printing and Stationery, as a Junior Clerk, in the year 1983. He was promoted, in due course, to the post of Senior Clerk, in the year 2001 and was working on the said post when he applied for the post in question. According to the petitioner, he fulfills the requirement of experience as well, therefore, he is eligible and qualified for appointment to the post in question. However, the candidature of the petitioner came to be rejected by the GPSC on the ground that the petitioner does not possess the requisite experience as it is only the experience on the post of Superintendent or Head Clerk, which are the feeder posts for promotion, that is to be counted. According to the GPSC, the administrative experience gained by the petitioner was on the posts of Junior Clerk and Senior Clerk, which are not the feeder posts for promotion to the post of Administrative Officer/ Assistant Director/ Manager (Publication), therefore, the petitioner is ineligible and his candidature cannot be considered. Aggrieved by the rejection of his candidature by the GPSC vide the impugned communication dated 13.11.2007, the petitioner is before this Court.

(3.) Mr.Vaibhav A.Vyas, learned advocate for the petitioner, has submitted that the stand of the GPSC that the administrative experience required for the post can only be the experience gained on a feeder post for promotion, is absolutely against the Recruitment Rules. It is submitted that the Recruitment Rules do not specify on which post the experience should have been gained. Had it been the intention of the legislature to limit the experience only to the feeder posts for promotion to the post in question, it would have been explicitly mentioned in the Recruitment Rules, as has been done in the Rule pertaining to promotion to the said post. The Recruitment Rules do not limit the experience gained by a candidate to any particular post insofar as direct recruitment is concerned. The interpretation of the Recruitment Rules made by the GPSC is impermissible, as the Rules have to be read as they are and cannot be restricted in the manner that is sought to be done by the GPSC.