(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI) 1. We have heard Mr.P.R.Thakkar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.Urjit Oza, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.
2. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 8.8.2012 passed by the leaned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.15012 of 2011. The appellant applied for the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor in pursuance of the advertisement No.15 of 2008-2009. He was selected and placed at serial no.11 of waiting list. Other candidates were appointed, but the appellant was not offered appointment. The respondent informed the appellant that he was not appointed as, while working as Junior Judge, his services were terminated vide notification dated 31.1.2007. He was not found eligible for appointment as Assistant Public Prosecutor. The letter of the respondent dated 28.2.2011 was challenged by the appellant in the writ petition. The learned Single Judge, while dismissing the writ petition has recorded the following findings in paragraph-5.
"5. Having heard learned advocates for both the sides and having gone through the records, this Court is of the view that the stand taken by the respondent is just and proper and does not call for any interference by this Court. It is pertinent to note that the recommendation made by the GPSC vide letter dated 24.07.2009 itself mentions that in case particulars mentioned in the application or details supplied are not found to be correct, the candidate's candidature shall stand cancelled automatically. The petitioner was in judicial service for the period 27.08.2004 to 31.01.2007 and in fact he mentioned in the application that he had been practicing as Advocate on criminal side since 2002. The petitioner was terminated on 31.01.2007 and he applied before the Gujarat Public Service Commission on 23.10.2008 and therefore he has breached Rule 3(b)(ii) of the Assistant Public Prosecutor General State Services, Class II Recruitment Rules, 2002. The petitioner has also suppressed material facts regarding his period of practice in terms of experience and therefore this Court does not think it fit to interfere in the matter more particularly considering Rule 18 of the Assistant Public Prosecutor General State Services, Class II Recruitment Rules, 2002."
3. It is not disputed by the leaned Counsel for the appellant that if his period of service as Judicial Office is omitted, then he has not practiced continuously for a period of three years at the criminal bar. The application of the appellant has also been filed alongwith the affidavit-in-reply which establishes this fact that the appellant does not possess eligibility criteria. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on Article 217 Explanation-AA and Article 236(b) of the Constitution of India and has urged that judicial service shall be treated to be equivalent to practice at the bar. We are not inclined to accept this submission. Moreover, the provisions of the Constitution relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant are not applicable to the facts of the case.
4. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in this Appeal. This Appeal is accordingly dismissed. As a consequence, Civil Application is also dismissed.
(V.M.SAHAI,J) (G.B.SHAH,J) ***vcdarji