Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/10730/2011 7/ 7 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10730 of 2011
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 13835 of 2011
To
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 13848 of 2011
=========================================================
ROHIT
RAMABHAI KOLI PATEL & 14 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
GUJARAT
STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
KISHOR M PAUL for
Petitioner(s) : 1 - 15.
None for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
Date
: 23/09/2011
ORAL
ORDER
1. This
petition and other petitions filed by the petitioners, have invoked
the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the
constitution of India, with a prayer to quash and set aside the
written test held on 2.1.2011 in pursuance to the circular no. 9028,
for the post of Conductor with respondent – Corporation, and
further to quash and set aside the said Circular No. 9028, as it is
without jurisdiction and contrary to earlier GSO No. 1017/1994 and
1022/1994.
2. The
respondent- Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, by issuing a
public advertisement on 20.9.2010, invited the applications for the
post of conductor and forms to be filled-in by on-line. As per the
above advertisement, there were about 2984 vacant posts of conductor
through out the State of Gujarat, and for the said post of conductor,
a fixed salary of Rs. 4500/- is to be paid for the first five years,
and upon considering the tenure and availability of vacancies,
permanency was to be conferred on such selected and appointed
candidates. The respondents-corporation has given weightage to the
various categories, including the reserved class and OBC and had
evolved the method for considering the academic qualifications of the
candidates, and accordingly, a basic merit for permitting such
candidates to participate in further selection was to be considered.
It is not in dispute that 43944 candidates have applied for 2984
posts of conductor and a written test was conducted on 2.1.2011 at
different centres of Gujarat and eligible candidates were selected,
and later on, appointments were given and even waiting list was also
prepared.
3. Mr.
Kishor M. Paul, learned advocate for the petitioners, at the outset,
would submit that conducting the written examination by the
respondent-corporation is contrary to earlier GSO, i.e., General
Standing Order No. 1017/1994, by which, it was decided to do away
with the system of elimination test by way of multiple choice
questions. It is further submitted that one such decision is taken
and it is reflected in GSO, and subsequent decision taken by a group
of officers empowered as per Resolution No. 9028 to conduct the
examination, is illegal and such kind of sub-delegation by the
Corporation is not permissible and provisions of GSO No. 1017/1994
will prevail over any resolution or decision of GSRTC. It is further
submitted that petitioner no. 1 had enough qualification and whose
name was sent by the Employment Exchange Office, Rajkot to the Zonal
Office of GSRTC, at Rajkot, and he was permitted to apply through
on-line without payment of any fee, but the said petitioner is also
not even called for the written examination.
According
to learned advocate for the petitioners, conduct of written
examination by the respondent – GSRTC, is illegal and it is a glaring
example of mismanagement on the part of respondent –
corporation, which has deprived the eligible candidates from
contesting for the post in question. It is further submitted that
inspite of representation made pursuant to the order dated 11.1.2011
passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 56/2011, the
case of the petitioners is not considered in proper perspective and
the reply given by the respondent- corporation is evasive and
untenable in law, and therefore, appropriate directions be given to
the respondent – corporation to consider the case of the
petitioners for the post of conductor, as prayed for.
4. Upon
perusal of the record and submissions made by the learned advocate
for the petitioners, I am not inclined to accept any of the
submissions made by the learned advocate for the petitioners and if
General Standing Order No. 1017/1994 is closely perused, it refers to
earlier GSO No. 985 dated 28.9.1992 and GSO No. 987 dated 13.11.1992.
It further establishes that by GSO No. 985 dated 28.9.1992 practice
of conducting objective type of test was prevalent with GSRTC, but in
a meeting consisting of Vice Chairman and Managing Director, after
considering the relevant aspects for the post of conductor and
selection procedure to be undertaken, a decision was taken to cancel
such objective type of written examination and it was decided not to
take written examination, as above, for the said post. Accordingly,
certain instructions were issued on 19.9.1994 by the Vice Chairman
and Managing Director of GSRTC, Ahmedabad and concerned offices.
That
another GSO No. 1022/1994 is perused, it refers to earlier GSO,
namely, No. 999/1993 dated 12.8.1993, No. 1019/1994 dated 11.11.1994
and No. 1021/1994 dated 22.11.1994, and it also reiterates that
candidates are to be called in for interview on the basis of
weightage given to their academic qualifications. It further provides
basic academic qualifications and other such procedure.
When
the advertisement dated 20.9.2010 for the post of conductor was
given, 2984 vacancies were available, and the respondent- corporation
had received 43944 applications from eligible candidates, who were
qualified as per the prescribed norms. When such huge number of
applications were received, in view of administrative hardship and
exigencies, high ranking officers, consisting of Vice Chairman and
Managing Director of GSRTC and two other Directors, who were also
functioning as Commissioner of Transport and Additional Secretary,
Economic Affairs, Department of Finance, Government of Gujarat and
the Chairman of GSRTC who was also Additional Chief Secretary,
Department of Transport, Government of Gujarat, collectively decided
that the proposal pursuant to the circular/resolution were to be
considered and all powers pertaining to conducting of examination,
etc. were to be given to the Vice President and Managing Director,
GSRTC, and accordingly, Resolution No. 9028 was passed. The above
decision was taken by the Chairman, Vice Chairman and Managing
Director of GSRTC, including two Directors, who were also
Commissioner of Transport and Additional Secretary, Department of
Finance, to conduct a written examination in view of receipt of
about 43944 applications for rational scrutiny in accordance with the
weightage prescribed in GSO No. 1022/1994 and candidates were called
and selected, cannot be said to be unreasonable, arbitrary or illegal
exercise of power. Even by GSO No. 1017/1994, it was decided for the
time being to do away with the objective type of test. It seems that
the said decision was taken only by the high ranking officers
including the Vice Chairman and Managing Director. At the same time,
the decision taken vide Resolution No. 9028, is not only taken by the
Vice Chairman and Managing Director, but also by the Chairman of
GSRTC, who happens to be the Additional Chief Secretary, Port &
Transport Department and other two Directors. Such collective
decision taken by the Board of Directors to cope up with the
unprecedented situation and dealing with more than 43000 applicants
and further rationalizing the process of selection, cannot be said to
be in any manner, a decision contrary to the earlier GSO No.
1017/1994 or any other rules or regulation of the GSRTC –
respondent herein.
5. Upon
a representation made by the petitioners, and after considering the
individual case of the aggrieved persons, General Manager,
Administration, has communicated on 27.1.2011, by which, it is
revealed that the grievances of the petitioners were considered by
the competent officer, as directed by the High Court in its earlier
order dated 11.1.2011 and by following the procedure of GSO No.
1021/1994 and 1022/1994 about giving due weightage to academic
qualifications, experience, etc. only 9000 candidates were called for
against the vacancies of 2984 for the post of conductor, which
appears to be just and reasonable, meaning thereby, more than three
times of vacancies, candidates were called and after undergoing all
the procedure, qualified and eligible candidates came to be selected.
In
the above scenario, if any of the petitioners who have not fulfilled
any of the eligibility criteria, as prescribed by following the
method of weightage to be given as per GSO No. 1021/1994 and
1022/1994 by the respondent- GSRTC, and name of such candidate or
candidates have not been reflected in the selection/waiting list, it
cannot be said that the respondent- GSRTC has taken a decision
contrary to law. A perusal of communication dated 27.1.2011 by the
competent officer of the Corporation, do not reveal any irregularity
or illegality on the part of the respondent- corporation in
undertaking the selection process for the post of conductor, I deem
it just and proper to reject the petitions.
6. In
view of above, all the petitions are summarily rejected with no order
as to costs.
[ANANT
S. DAVE, J.]
mandora/
Top