RUPSINH SONSINH PARMAR Vs. SABARKANTHA DISTRICT PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The three petitioners have a grievance that they were not considered and called for interview for the post of driver even though they were qualified and eligible.

(2.) In the affidavit-in-reply, it is stated that for the 10 advertised posts of driver, there were 865 applications. Out of them, only 145 were qualified and eligible. As far as petitioner No. 3 is concerned, his birthdate is 5-10-1943 and, therefore, he was clearly age-barred as being more than 45 years of age. As regards the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2, it is submitted that though they were within 45, the respondents have taken a decision that they would consider and call for interview only five times the number of vacancies. Since there were 10 vacancies, 50 persons were to be called for interview and for making shortlisting, they had adopted the criteria of date of obtaining licence for heavy motor vehicle and experience of running such heavy motor vehicle satisfactorily and on such objective criteria, 50 candidates were interviewed. The 50th candidate was having the licence of 24-6-1978, the petitioner No. 2 had the licence of 1979 and the petitioner No. 1 had the licence of 4-4-1980. Therefore, they were in that list at serial Nos. 74 and 91. The persons beyond 50 were not called for interview. When there are large number of eligible candidates applying for limited posts, a shortlist has to be adopted and when it is done on an objective criteria, it cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary and, therefore, the exclusion of these petitioners on the ground that they have failed to meet with the criteria for shortlisting cannot be said to be arbitrary or discriminatory.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that these petitioners were already in service as drivers and, therefore, they were entitled to special consideration and they would form a class by themselves.