(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI) 1. We have heard Mr. S.P. Majmudar, learned counsel assited by Mr. B.T. Vyas for the appellant and Mr. Neeraj Ashar, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1.
2. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 3.9.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.11129 of 2012 by which interim relief has not been granted to the appellant – original petitioner. The learned Single Judge has refused to grant interim relief by placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Jamaluddin v. State of Jammu & Kashmir and others, AIR 2012 SC 291 wherein the Apex Court has held that if the Rules do not provide for age relaxation, then age relaxation cannot be read into the Rules by the judicial interpretation.
3. An advertisement was issued for the post of Assistant Inspector of Motor Vehicles (Class – III) by the Gujarat Public Service Commission (for short 'Commission') on 13.7.2012. The only mode prescribed for applying in pursuance of the advertisement was on-line application. The candidates were not permitted to submit an application in physical format. According to the appellant, since the on-line application of the appellant was not being accepted by the Computer since the appellant was overage and, therefore, he tried to submit an application in physical format on 20.7.2012 which was not accepted by the Commission.
4. Mr. S.P. Majmudar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has vehemently urged that the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.962 of 2012 on 31.7.2012 has remanded the matter back to the learned Single Judge where a similarly situated candidate who was overage had filed a writ petition which was summarily dismissed and meanwhile, directed the Commission to accept the application of the appellant in physical format as 31.7.2012 was the last date of application.
5. In our opinion, the Commission rightly refused to accept the application dated 20.7.2012 of the appellant in physical format as the only mode prescribed for making an application in pursuance of the advertisement was on-line application. The procedure for application could not be changed by the appellant nor such a change could be justified. If a thing is required to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in the same manner and in no other manner.
6. In the instant case, the appellant has filed a writ petition on 9.8.2012, after the last date of submission of application i.e. 31.7.2012 was over. Therefore, the appellant who has applied after the last date of submission of application, in our opinion, is not entitled for any relief and his application could not be directed to be entertained by the Commission in the physical format.
7. Learned counsel Mr. Majmudar has also urged that the date of examination is 30.9.2012 and the appellant can apply for appearing in the examination till 29.9.2012. In our opinion, this argument is misconceived as the candidate is required to apply within the time frame fixed for making an application.
8. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any error in the order dated 3.9.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.11129 of 2012. This Letters Patent Appeal is devoid of any merits and is dismissed summarily.
9. In view of dismissal of main appeal, civil application also stands dismissed.
Sd/-
[V. M. SAHAI, J.] Sd/-
[G. B. SHAH, J.] Savariya