S B MEHTA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) . The petitioners are challenging by this petition, to the action of respondents of denial of the appointments to them on the post of Dy. Executive Engineer of Gujarat State Engineering Service Class II. It is not in dispute that in the year 1980, advertisement was given for 40 posts of Dy. Engineers for making selection thereon, by Gujarat Public Service Commission, Ahmedabad. The petitioners, in response to the said advertisement had submitted their applications. They were called for written test in which as per their case, they were successful. Thereafter they were called for viva-voce (interview), and thereafter in the year 1982, merit list had been published, But their names were not figured in the merit list. It is not in dispute that in the merit list which had been published in the year 1982, the petitioners were placed in the waiting list, though this fact has not been mentioned by the petitioners in the Special Civil Application. But Mr. R. J. Oza, learned Counsel for the Gujarat Public Service Commission has brought this fact to the notice of the Court which the learned Counsel for the petitioner has also admitted. Thereafter, a litigation before this Court in respect of those selections was started by the persons other than the petitioners. Those persons had come before this Court with grivances that the indiscriminately weightage is given to numbers which had been awarded to the candidates in viva-voce, and no weightage had been given to the performance of the candidates in the written test. It is also not in dispute between the parties that those petitions had been decided by this Court subject to the direction to the Commission to prepare fresh merit list after giving due weightage to the performance of candidates in the written test as also viva-voce. Accordingly, in the year 1986, a fresh merit list had been prepared and admittedly in this list, the names of the petitioners were not there though their names were in the waiting list at Sr. Nos. 24, 39, 67 & 68.. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the names of the petitioners, though they were selected, were erroneously placed in the waiting list instead of select list, It is also the grievance of the petitioners that had the respondent No. 3 would have prepared the select list as per the directions of this Court, in the earlier litigation, after giving due weightage to the marks of written test and viva-voce test, the placement of the petitioners ought to have been at higher side. The method adopted in preparation of the select list has been stated to be illegal.

(3.) . The petitioners have failed to make out any case whatsoever and the reasons are as follows.