(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI) 1. The Gujarat Public Service Commission (for short 'the commission'), on 28.1.2009, issued public advertisement for 67 posts of Principal/Senior Surveyor/Technical Officer/Training-cum- Placement Officer/Trade Testing Officer in Gujarat Skill Training Service, Class-II (Advertisement No.27/2008-09) in accordance with the Principal/Senior Surveyor/TechnicalOfficer/Training-cum- Placementfficer/Trade/Trade Testing Officer in Gujarat Skill Training Service, Class-II (Administrative Branch)(Senior Duty) Recruitment Rules, 1984, as per the reservation mentioned in the advertisement.
2. The appellant claims that he obtained information under R.T.I. Act and then he came to know that he was not treated as SEBC candidate but he was treated as 'general' category candidate in the preliminary examination. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant-petitioner which has been challenged in this appeal.
3. We have heard Mr Shalin N Mehta, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Vidhi J Bhatt for the appellant and Mr D.G. Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 and Mr. Niraj Ashar learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent no.2.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently urged that since in column No.4 the appellant had mentioned that he belonged to SEBC and he has also filed his caste certificate along with the application, merely, because the appellant has not clearly stated as to whether he is appearing in the examination under 'reserved' category or in 'un-reserved' category, he would not be disentitled to be treated as SEBC category candidate, if by mistake he has filled in the application form 'Not Applicable'. The learned counsel for the appellant has further urged that the commission had treated the appellant belonging to SEBC category and that is why the commission had issued admit card treating him as SEBC category candidate.
5. On the other hand the learned counsel for the commission has urged that after the preliminary examination was held on 24.4.2010 and before declaring its result, the applications of all candidates were scrutinised by the commission. The commission had in identical 190 cases of similarly situated candidates had treated them as Un-reserved (General) category candidates and thereafter, declared the result of the preliminary examination.
6. The appellant belonged to SEBC category. He applied on 12.2.2009 in the prescribed format in pursuance of the public advertisement. Along with the application form he attached caste certificate of SEBC category. The application form was in vernacular and was filled by the appellant in vernacular language. The English translation of column no.4 of the application form filled by the appellant is reproduced as under:
7. Though the appellant mentioned in column-4 that he belonged to SEBC class, but the column-4 he was further required to state that in which category he wanted to appear in the examination, either as a reserved category candidate or as a general category candidate. The appellant has written 'Not Applicable', therefore the appellant was considered as an 'unserved' category candidate.
8. The appellant did not claim that he wants to appear under the reserved category. He mentioned “Not Applicable” against “Whether he is applying for 'Reserved' or 'Un-reserved (General)' category candidate. As per the administrative decision taken by the commission the appellant was considered as general category candidate.
9. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the commission had treated the appellant belonging to SEBC category and that is why the commission had issued admit card treating him as SEBC category candidate, cannot be accepted. The learned counsel for the commission has explained that after the preliminary examination was held on 24.4.2010 and before declaring its result, the applications of all candidates were scrutinised by the commission and in identical 190 cases of similarly situated candidates had been treated as Un-reserved (General) category candidates. Thereafter, the commission had declared the result of the preliminary examination on 15.6.2010 in which 410 candidates qualified. After further scrutiny final result of the preliminary examination was declared on 5.8.2011 in which 191 candidates qualified and they were called for personal interview. The last candidate in the Un-reserved (General) category in the preliminary examination had secured 42 marks whereas the appellant could secure only 39 marks, therefore, he could not qualify in the preliminary examination.
10. The interviews were held between 2.9.2011 to 17.9.2011 and result of personal interview had been declared on 2.12.2011. The selected candidates have joined but seven posts of SEBC and one post of ST category had remained vacant as suitable candidates were not available. In our opinion, the mistake committed by the commission in issuing admit card to the appellant as SEBC candidate cannot help the appellant as the mistake was corrected by the commission after scrutiny of applications prior to the declaration of the final results of the preliminary examination.
11. After the preliminary examination was held, the Commission scrutinised the applications and then they came to know that the appellant has not claimed any category and has filled the relevant column as 'Not Applicable'. Therefore, they treated the appellant to be general category candidate. Merely because a caste certificate has been filed or attached with the application that the appellant is SEBC candidate, would not entitle him to be SEBC candidate unless the appellant specifically claimed his category as SEBC. It is not disputed by learned counsel for the parties that the preliminary examination is over, the interviews have been held and results of interviews were also declared on 2.12.2011 and candidates have joined. It is true that seven posts of SEBC are still vacant but at this stage if we accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant then the Commission will have to take fresh interview of the appellant whereas the Commission has rejected on the same ground large number of applications as stated in para 3.2 of the affidavit-in-reply. When the appellant was filling the form for appearing for the preliminary examination, he should have correctly filled the form and claimed his caste category.
12. Thus in our view, the appellant had clearly written in column-4 of the application form 'Not Applicable', where he was required to claim as to whether he was appearing in the preliminary examination as reserved or un-reserved category and the commission rightly considered him as a 'general' category candidate. The learned Single Judge did not commit any error in dismissing the writ petition. We do not find any merits in this appeal. This appeal is dismissed along with the Civil Application. Parties shall bear their own costs.
[V.M. SAHAI, J.] [G. B. SHAH, J.] msp