PATEL SURESHKUMAR LALITKUMAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are before this Court challenging the reduction in the original cut off marks published in the advertisement to 40% for general category and 35% for all reserved categories, including female category, after declaration of the result of the examination and on completion of the stage of documents verification. The petitioners, in response to the advertisement published for the selection of Supervisor Instructor Class?III in various Industrial Training Institutes throughout the State, appeared in the written examination, which was conducted in March, 2016 and April, 2016 and the result thereof was declared on March 06, 2016; and in September, 2016, the respondent No.2 declared the marks scored by the candidates. Those candidates who had secured more than cut off marks prescribed in the advertisement were called by way of a notification dated September 10, 2016. On October 07, 2016, after completion of the stage of documents verification, the additional female candidates, physically handicapped candidates and Ex?servicemen candidates were called for verification of documents. This, according to the petitioners, has been done by allowing those candidates who secured less marks than the cut off marks prescribed in the advertisement. It is the say of the petitioners that allowing those candidates who have obtained less than cut off marks prescribed in the advertisement amounts to changing the rules of the game after the game has started. This reduction in cut off marks resulted into injustice. Hence, the petitioners have approached this Court praying for the following substantial reliefs :

(2.) This Court has heard at length Shri Shalin Mehta, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Shri Hemang Shah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. A fortiori, he has urged that this reduction in cut off marks from 60% to 40% for general category candidates and from 65% to 35% for reserved category persons, is impermissible at such a stage. It is after once the result is declared, the State has chosen to reduce the cut off marks prescribed in the advertisement, which is not at all permissible. He has urged that this is a recruitment on Class?III post, for which no interview is to be conducted. It is urged that it is contrary to the legal mandate and, therefore, the petitioners have sought for intervention of this Court.

(3.) Ms.Manisha Lavkumar, learned Government Pleader appearing with Shri Rashesh Rindani, learned Assistant Government Pleader, has urged that out of total number of 1415 posts, advertised, the State was getting in all 1311 candidates. In 33% quota meant for horizontal reservation of the female candidates, only 194 candidates are available, whereas though 25 posts have been prescribed for Physically Handicapped category, only 16 candidates are available; and out of total 144 posts i.e. 10% quota of Ex?serviceman, no candidate is available. Therefore, according to her, this reduction has been contemplated across the category for the benefit of the administration and for the benefit of those who are otherwise falling in the horizontal category of reservation. She has urged that the total number of candidates without cut off marks being reduced would be 1088, which is common in both the lists.