Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/1951/2011 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1951 of 2011
=========================================================
RAJESH
KAMARAJBHAI JAGANIA - Petitioner(s)
Versus
GUJARAT
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION THROUGH SECRETARY & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
KAMAL SOJITRA FOR MR VAIBHAV A VYAS
for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR DG SHUKLA for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR
MAULIK G NANAVATI, ASST.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HON'BLE
SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI
Date
: 11/02/2011
ORAL ORDER
1. Notice.
Mr.D.G.Shukla, learned advocate, waives service of notice on behalf
of respondent No.1. Mr.Maulik G.Nanavati, learned Assistant
Government Pleader, waives service of notice for respondent No.2. On
the facts and in the circumstances of the case and with the consent
of the learned counsel for the respective parties, the petition is
being heard and finally decided, today.
2. This
petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been
filed with the following prayers:-
“(A) quash
and set aside the decision of the Gujarat Public Service Commission
as contained in Annexure-A to this petition, whereby, the candidature
of the petitioner is rejected for recruitment on the post of
Assistant Conservator of Forests/ Range Forest Officer, Class-II and
further be pleased to declare and hold that the petitioner is
eligible to be considered for appointment on the said post pursuant
to the advertisement No:209/ 2009-10, Annexure-B to this petition,
issued by the Gujarat Public Service Commission, and
(B) further
be pleased to direct the Gujarat Public Service Commission to accept
the candidature of the petitioner for recruitment on the post of
Assistant Conservator of Forests/Range Forest Officer, Class-II, and
(C) further
be pleased to direct the Gujarat Public Service Commission to
consider the case of the petitioners on merits alongwith the other
eligible candidates, and
(D) award
the cost of petition, and
(E) pending
admission and final disposal of this petition, the Honourable Court
may be pleased to direct the authorities of Gujarat Public Service
Commission to permit the petitioner to participate in the selection
process for recruitment on the post of Assistant Conservator of
Forests/ Range Forest Officer, Class-II, subject to further orders
that may be passed in this petition, and
(F) grant
any other relief or pass any other order which the Honourable Court
may consider as just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the
case.”
3. Briefly
stated, the case of the petitioner is that he had made an application
for being considered for the post of Assistant Conservator of
Forests/ Range Forest Officer, Class-II, pursuant to the
advertisement No.209/2009-10, which was published in the newspaper on
1.3.2010. It is stated that the preliminary examinations were held on
30.5.2010, in which the petitioner had appeared successfully. The
main examinations are to be held on 19.2.2011. However, the name of
the petitioner appears on the list of ‘Ineligible Candidates’ on the
ground that a copy of the degree certificate of the petitioner was
not submitted by him at the relevant point of time. Aggrieved by the
action of the respondent No.1 in considering the petitioner as being
ineligible to appear in the final examination, he has approached this
Court by filing the present petition.
4. At
the very outset, Mr.Kamal Sojitra, learned advocate for Mr.Vaibhav A.
Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioner, states that the interest of
justice would be met, if the representation dated 3.2.2011
(Annexure-E) made by the petitioner is directed to be considered by
respondent No.1 before the commencement of the final examination.
5. Upon
the above statement being made by the learned advocate for the
petitioner, the following order is passed:-
Respondent
No.1 is directed to consider the representation dated 3.2.2011
(Annexure-E) made by the petitioner on, or before, 15.2.2011.
The
decision shall be made in accordance with law and in proper
perspective.
It
is clarified that while passing this order, the Court has not entered
into the merits of the case.
The
petition is disposed of, in the above terms.
Direct
Service of this order, today, is permitted.
(Smt.
Abhilasha Kumari, J.)
~gaurav~
Top