1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: “(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions quashing and setting aside the impugned decision of respondent No.2 bearing No.RCT34054550R5 (at ANNEXUREG hereto) and further be pleased to permit the petitioner to appear in the interview to be conducted pursuant to advertisement No.17/201011 dated 01.11.2010 (at ANNEXUREA hereto);
(B) During the pendency and final disposal of the present petition YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to permit the petitioner to appear in the interview to be conducted pursuant to advertisement No.17/201011 dated 01.11.2010 (at ANNEXUREA hereto) and also further be pleased to stay the impugned decision of respondent No.2 bearing No.RCT34054550R5 (at ANNEXUREG hereto);
(C) Pass any such other and/or further orders that may be thought just and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the present case;”
2. This Court vide order dated 2.2.2012 was pleased to issue notice for final disposal and in response to the said order, Ms. Megha Chitaliya, learned AGP appears for respondent No.1 and Mr. D.G. Shukla, learned advocate appears for respondent No.2.
3. It transpires from the record of the petition that the petitioner applied for the post of Senior Drug Inspector, Gujarat Drugs Service, ClassII and pursuant to the advertisement published by respondent No.2 Commission at AnnexureA to the petition, the petitioner applied in the requisite format on 19.11.2010. As per the advertisement, every candidate was supposed to enclose the experience certificate (as per the prescribed format). It appears that the petitioner did submit certificates of experience with the application (AnnexureC Colly. to the petition). It appears that after scrutiny, respondent No.2 Commission did not call the petitioner for the oral interview since his experience certificates as prescribed in the advertisement were not in the prescribed form and being aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed.
4. Heard Mr. Majmudar, learned advocate for the petitioner and Ms. Megha Chitaliya, learned AGP for respondent No.1 and Mr. D.G. Shukla, learned advocate for respondent No.2 Commission.
5. Mr. Majmudar, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner in pursuance of the advertisement No.17 of 2010 dated 1.11.2010 applied as per the requirement of respondent No.2 Commission and that there is no irregularity in the certificates of experience submitted by the petitioner. It is submitted that the experience certificates are as per the requirement of respondent No.2 Commission and are on letterhead of the establishments where the petitioner has worked and where he is still working. It is submitted that the petitioner otherwise fulfills all requirements including educational qualifications and also the experience and therefore, the action of respondent No.2 in not considering the application form of the petitioner is arbitrary and illegal. It is submitted that in fact no opportunity is given to ratify the mistake, if any, neither any query has been raised by respondent No.2 at any time and therefore, the action of respondent No.2 in not permitting the petitioner to appear in the interview is perse, illegal and one sided and the impugned decision is taken in one sided manner and the same is illegal. It is submitted that even on the ground of principles of quality and justice, respondent No.2 should be directed to consider the case of the petitioner. No further grounds or contentions are raised by the learned advocate for the petitioner.
6. As against this, Mr. D.G. Shukla, learned advocate for respondent No.2 has invited attention of this Court to the advertisement being advertisement No.17 of 2010 published on 1.11.2010. It is submitted that in the advertisement, a format is provided in which the experience certificate is required to be submitted by a candidate. It is submitted that in fact the format is provided as per the Recruitment Rules and as per the provisions of Rules of 1999 pertaining to the appointment of Senior Drug Inspector, a format is provided in the Rules itself which are framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that even otherwise, the details which are given in the experience certificates submitted by the petitioner do not contain the details which are provided in the format appended to the Recruitment Rules, 2009. It is submitted that thus, the petitioner has not submitted the experience certificate prescribed in the format. It is submitted that the petitioner has no inherent right as prayed for in the present petition and respondent No.2 Commission had given opportunity by providing format in the advertisement itself as is evident from the advertisement dated 1.11.2010 and therefore, the contentions raised by the petitioner are devoid of any merits and the petition deserves to be dismissed in limine.
7. Ms. Megha Chitaliya, learned AGP has adopted the arguments made by Mr. D.G. Shukla, learned advocate for respondent No.2 Commission.
8. Considering the provisions of Rule 4(D) of the Recruitment Rules meant for appointment of Senior Drug Inspector, Gujarat Drugs Service, ClassII clearly provides that the experience certificate is to be submitted as per the format which is part of the Rules. The said format clearly provides that over and above the name of the candidate and name of the employer where the candidate has worked, further details are also required to be mentioned in such a certificate as prescribed under the Rules. On perusal of the said format, it interalia provides that even licence number as per the format issued by the Quality Control Department and the experience is to be stated on perusal of the experience certificates (AnnexureC Colly. to the petition). It is crystal clear that the same are not as per the format which is prescribed under the Recruitment Rules more particularly Rule 4(D) and the format attached to those Rules. It is further noteworthy that in the advertisement itself, a format in which the experience certificate was to be submitted/attached by a candidate is clearly mentioned including the details that are required in the said experience certificates. The learned advocate for the petitioner has not been able to point out or contend before this Court that the experience certificates (AnnexureC Colly. to the petition) are as per the format prescribed. Taking into consideration the fact that the requisite format is provided itself in the Recruitment Rules and that there is a specific Rule being Rule 4(D), as aforesaid, which provides for such a certificate to be an essential document to be submitted along with the application form coupled with the fact that admittedly the petitioner has not submitted such certificates, the decision of respondent No.2 cannot be termed as illegal as tried to be canvassed by the learned advocate for the petitioner. The Rules of recruitment are to be adhere to and there cannot be any excuse for want of knowledge of such Rules as in the present case, as aforesaid in the advertisement itself, the requisite format is provided clearly and therefore, the decision taken by the respondent No.2 is in accordance with the Recruitment Rules of Senior Drug Inspector, Gujarat Drugs Service, ClassII and hence, it cannot be said that the decision is arbitrary. The contentions raised by the learned advocate for the petitioner to the effect that no opportunity has been given to ratify is also misconceived. When the Rules provide that the certificate is to be given in the format and when respondent No.2 has clearly mentioned in the advertisement itself, it was on the contrary duty of the petitioner to produce experience certificates in the requisite format and hence, no further opportunity is necessary to be granted. The recruitment process is to be carried out as per the Recruitment Rules and this Court in its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot interfere with the decision of respondent No.2 Commission in adhering to the Recruitment Rules.
9. In view of the above, the petition fails and the same is hereby rejected. Notice discharged. No order as to costs.
[R.M.CHHAYA, J.] mrpandya