AMALIYAR JAYESHKUMAR VICHIYABHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Advocate Ms. Sejal K. Mandavia on behalf of the petitioners and learned Government Pleader Mr. S. S. Shah with learned Assistant government Pleaders Ms. Sandhya Natani, Mr. Vinay Pandya, Mr. Hukum Singh, Mr. Amit Patel and Mr. Prashant Mankad, appearing for the respondent-State Authorities.

(2.) IN this group of petitions, prayer made in Paragraph 7 (A) is to quash and set aside the Government Policy dated 13. 09. 2001 alongwith the guidelines of calculation of marks by holding that it is unjust, arbitrary and violating the fundamental rights of the C. T. I. candidates and, therefore, it should be struck down. The Prayer 7 (B) is to hold that for the post of Craft Instructors, the C. T. I. candidates are more qualified and they should be given preference and priority, for that the calculation of the marks decided by the Government may also be quashed and set aside. Pending the petitions, a prayer is made to grant stay against the operation, execution and implementation of the new policy dated 13. 09. 2001 alongwith guidelines and to restrain the respondents from preparing the selection list and giving the appointment pursuant to the advertisement (Annexure-D) relying upon the new policy.

(3.) THE Policy dated 13. 09. 2001 is placed on record (Annexure-A, Page 19 ). Ms. Sejal Mandavia, learned Advocate for the petitioners, pointed out Schedule-1 at Page 22 of the petition and submitted that as per Item No. 2, ITI and apprenticeship passed candidate is entitled to 0. 20 x A (SCC Marks) + 0. 27 x B (ITI Marks) + 0. 53 x C (Marks of Apprentice Training of 2 years ). Ms. Mandavia also referred to Item No. 4 on Page 23, which relates to diploma holders and calculation for diploma holders for the post in question is as under: 0. 20 x A (SCC Marks) + 0. 80 x D (Diploma Marks) x Q, which includes minimum passing marks in ITI/ati q = minimum passing marks in ITI/ati minimum passing marks in diploma = (357/700) = 1. 418 (36/100)She further referred to Item No. 4 on Page 24, which provides that additional five marks is to be given to diploma holder. Therefore, she submitted that there is discrimination between the CTI and diploma holder and while drafting the policy, the department has not considered the candidates of CTI equivalent to diploma holders and the diploma holders have been given preference by the department. She, therefore, submitted that chance of selection for CTI Candidates will decrease or less in comparison to the diploma holders. Ms. Mandavia further submitted that in formula, CTI marks are not added nor taken into account and "q" benefit must be given to the petitioners, which has not been given by the department. According to her submission, the whole method of selection while preparing the selection list on the basis of educational qualifications passed by the candidate is arbitrary, capricious and requires to be quashed. She also submitted that initially before this policy, there was written test and interview and thereafter, selection was made on the basis of educational qualifications, which was a reasonable procedure and method adopted by the department. This change in policy has adversely affected the right of the petitioners for the post of Craft Instructor. Except these, no other submissions are made by Ms. Mandavia, learned Counsel for the petitioners and no decision is relied upon by her.