Gujarat High Court High Court

Nita vs State on 5 May, 2010

Gujarat High Court
Nita vs State on 5 May, 2010
Author: Ks Jhaveri,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/5680/2010	 3/ 3	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5680 of 2010
 

 
=========================================================

 

NITA
HASHMUKHRAI GOHEL - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
CHETAN K PANDYA for
Petitioner(s) : 1, 
MR JK SHAH, LD.ASST.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for
Respondent(s) : 1, 
None for Respondent(s) :
2, 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 05/05/2010
 

ORAL
ORDER

By
way of present petition, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for
quashing and setting aside the decision dated 03rd
September 2009 rendered by the respondent No.2 and directing the
respondents to permit the petitioner to appear in the oral interview
for the post of Assistant Director of Training/ Assistant Training
Advisor/ Principal in connection with the advertisement No.195 or in
the alternative to arrange for the oral interview for the same if
the interview procedure has already been completed as well as
directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner on
merit.

It
is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was working with
the respondent-State on contract basis as Principal, Jamnagar Mahila
ITI under the Department of Director of Employment and Training. On
15th March 2007, the respondent- Gujarat
Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the
Commission’) published an advertisement for the cadre of Class-I for
the post of Assistant Director of Training/ Assistant Training
Advisor/Principal. The petitioner applied for the same and she
appeared in the written test. Thereafter, the respondent-Commission
on 29th January 2009 published another advertisement for
the post of Class-II cadre. The petitioner also applied for the
same. On 03rd September 2009, the petitioner received a
letter from the respondent No.2 that the petitioner cannot be
considered for oral interview as the petitioner does not have enough
experience. On 12th December 2009, the petitioner’s
candidature has been rejected as she failed to supply her SSC
examination certificate for the purpose of her date of birth. The
petitioner and others challenged the decision of rejecting the
candidature for Class-II post before this Court by way of Special
Civil Application No.551 of 2010, wherein on the statement made by
the learned advocate for the respondent-Commission that the
respondent-Commission will permit all the candidates to furnish the
requisite documents, the said petition was disposed of. Even the
petitioner has not been called for furnishing the documents of
experience. Hence, the present petition.

Having
considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioner and the relevant documents on record, it
transpires that the petitioner had applied for the post of Class-I
cadre and thereafter vide communication dated 03rd
September 2009, she has been intimated by the respondent-authority
that the petitioner does not possess the requisite educational
qualification and experience as enumerated in the advertisement
which is prescribed by the respondent-Commission. It is pertinent
to note that even after the said decision, the petitioner is not in
a position to establish that he is fulfilling all the criteria as
enumerated in the advertisement as well as those prescribed by the
respondent-Commission. Therefore, as the petitioner does not possess
the requisite educational qualification and experience, her
candidature has been rejected by the respondent-Commissioner. Hence,
the action of the respondent- Commission is just and proper. I do
not find any illegality or material irregularity in the impugned
decision rendered by the respondent-Commission. Therefore, the
present petition which is devoid of any substance and merit, is
required to be dismissed in limine.

In
view of aforesaid, the present petition fails and is, accordingly,
summarily dismissed.

(K.S.

Jhaveri, J)

Aakar

   

Top