Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/13924/2009 5/ 5 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 13924 of 2009
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 179 of 2010
To
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 180 of 2010
=========================================================
PATEL
SANDIP RAMESH & 7 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
In
SCA NO.13924/2009 :
MR
YATIN OZA, Sr. Advocate with MS SRUSHTI A THULA
for Petitioner(s) : 1 -
8.
MR JK SHAH AGP for Respondent(s) : 1,
NOTICE SERVED BY DS
for Respondent(s) : 2,
MR PRASHANT G. DESAI, Sr. Advocate with MR
KAUSHAL D PANDYA for Respondent(s) : 3.
In
SCA No.179/2010 & 180/2010 :
MR
K.B. Pujara for Petitioners.
MR JK SHAH AGP for Respondent(s) :
1,
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 2,
MR PRASHANT G.
DESAI, Sr. Advocate with MR KAUSHAL D PANDYA for Respondent(s) :
3.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 12/03/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. The
petitioners herein are the students, who had applied for the post of
Vidhyasahayak in the Marathi
medium, in pursuance of the Advertisement dated 21.12.2009 published
by respondent no.3. The petitioners in S.C.A. No.13924/2009 belong to
the General Category, whereas, the petitioners in S.C.A. No.179/2010
& 180/2010 belong to the SEBC and SC categories respectively.
2.0 Mr.
Yatin Oza, learned Sr. Advocate appearing with Ms. Srushti A. Thula
for the petitioners in S.C.A. No.13924/2009, has submitted that all
the petitioners belong to the General Category. However, in the
Advertisement dated 21.12.2009, no seats have been reserved for the
General Category candidates and that all the seats have been
re-converted into seats for reserved category candidates and have
been considered as backlog of those seats which were not filled up in
the recent years.
2.1 Learned
Sr. Advocate has further submitted that the vacancies for the post of
Vidhyasahayak (Science
Stream) is totally a new recruitment and that the seats are proposed
to be filled up from amongst the backlog seats consisting of
candidates belonging to the SC, ST & OBC categories only and not
the General Category. Hence, appropriate directions deserve to be
issued to respondent-authorities to fill in the seats from amongst
the candidates belonging to the General Category candidates.
3.0 Mr.
K. B. Pujara, learned Advocate for the petitioners in S.C.A.
No.179/2010 & 180/2010, has submitted that the petitioners in
S.C.A. No.179/2010 belong to the SEBC category. He has submitted that
in the Advertisement in question, only 3 vacancies have been
earmarked for SEBC category for the PTC (General Stream) and that the
remaining 3 vacancies of SEBC category (Marathi medium) have been
earmarked for PTC (Science Stream), which is contrary to the data
collected by the petitioners under the Right to Information Act,
2005. Therefore, appropriate directions deserve to be issued to fill
up the 3 vacancies notified in the SEBC category in the Marathi
medium (Science Stream) to be
filled up by SEBC candidates of Marathi medium (General Stream).
3.1 Learned
counsel has contended that the backlog seats falling under the SC
category have not been carried forward though 7% reservation for the
said category has been provided. He has submitted that out of the
unfilled seats of ST category, some seats may be ordered to be
transferred to the SC category and the petitioner in S.C.A.
No.180/2010 may be treated accordingly.
4. Mr.
Prashant G. Desai, learned Sr. Advocate appearing with Mr. Kaushal
Pandya for respondent no.3, has submitted that they have filled up 25
seats from 53 vacancies and that 28 vacancies have been carried
forward as a backlog in the year 2009. All the said 53 vacancies were
not converted into General category seats. Respondent no.3 had
re-reserved the vacant seats which were already de-reserved and
converted from the seats reserved for ST / SC and SEBC category into
seats for candidates belonging to the General category and has also
maintained the reservation quota as directed in the Government
Notification dated 30.09.1994.
5. From
the reply filed by respondent no.3 and more particularly, Para-13, it
transpires that out of the total number of 17 posts of Vidhyasahayaks
(Marathi medium), 9 posts are to
be filled in for PTC (General Stream) and the remaining 8 posts are
to be filled in for PTC (Science Stream). Out of the said 9 posts for
PTC (General Stream), 6 posts are reserved for the ST category and 3
for the SEBC category, whereas, out of the 8 posts
for PTC (Science Stream), 5 posts are reserved for ST category and 3
for the SEBC category. The said bifurcation of seats is in consonance
with the directives issued by the State Government vis-a-vis
filling-up of the backlog seats of the year 2008. The respondent
no.3 has maintained the ratio of 50 : 50 while bifurcating the total
number of vacancies available. In view of the above scenario, there
does not remain any backlog of seats for the year 2008.
6. By
way of the Advertisement dated 21.12.2009, applications for PTC
(Science Stream) have been invited for the very first time. However,
out of the total 8 seats for PTC (Science Stream), no seats have been
reserved either for the General or the SC category. It is true that
there cannot be any backlog of seats for a post for which a selection
process is to be undertaken for the very first time. However, even in
such cases, this Court has a very limited scope for judicial review
and the only aspect which this Court has to look into is as to
whether the provisions of Article 16(4)(B) of the Constitution and
the principle laid down by the Apex Court have been followed or not.
So far as the bifurcation of the seats is concerned, I find the same
to be in consonance with the provisions of Article 16(4)(B) of the
Constitution.
7. Pursuant
to the order dated 30.12.2009 passed by this Court in S.C.A.
No.13924/2009, respondent no.3 was directed to accept the application
forms that may be submitted by the petitioners in connection with the
impugned Advertisement dated 21.12.2009 and accordingly, the
petitioners submitted their application forms. Today, during the
course of hearing, a statement
was made at the bar by Mr. Desai, learned Sr. Advocate appearing on
behalf of respondent no.3, that respondent no.3 would be able to
conclude the selection process within a period of about one month
from today.
8. In
view of the above, Rule
returnable on 03.05.2010.
It
is observed that if at the time of selection for PTC (General
Stream), no candidates are available under the (reserved) seats, as
provided in the Advertisement dated 21.12.2009, the respondent no.3
shall consider the case of the petitioners for the said seats, by
de-reserving the seats, which shall be subject to the final outcome
in these petitions.
Further,
if no candidates are available for PTC (Science Stream), the
selection shall be done from amongst the candidates belonging to the
other categories and the same shall be subject to the further orders
that may be passed by this Court at a later stage.
Direct
service permitted.
[K.S.JHAVERI,
J.]
Pravin/*
Top