Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/11029/2010 5/ 5 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 11029 of 2010
=========================================
SANJAYKUMAR
PURSHOTTAMBHAI SOLANKI - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================
Appearance :
MR
IM PANDYA for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 1,
None
for Respondent(s) : 2,
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
Date
: 17/09/2010
ORAL
ORDER
Heard learned
Advocate Mr.Pandya for the petitioner.
When it is
inquired from the learned Advocate for the petitioner as to whether
the petitioner has approached the authority for the relief which he
is seeking in this petition, the learned Advocate submitted that,
‘certainly’.
2. The relief
sought for in this petition is as under:-
16. A. That
the Honourable Court may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any
other, writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to
produce the answer sheets in the subject of Gujarati and English
for the post of Sahayak (unarmed) Police Sub Inspector and be further
pleased to verify as to whether any proper assessment and counting
or marks are properly given and be further pleased to declare that
the petitionener is entitled to more marks in Gujarati and English
than what are given by the respondents.
(emphasis
supplied)
2.1 Another
prayer sought for in the petition is as under:-
16. B. The
Honourable Court may further be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or
any other, writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to
consider the petitioner eligible for the post of Sahayak
(unarmed) Police Sub Inspector and be further pleased to proceed
further with the recruitment process.
(emphasis
supplied)
3. Learned
Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner did
approach respondent No.2 Chairman, Sahayak (unarmed) Police Sub
Inspector Bharti Board with a written application on 06.09.2010. The
case of the petitioner as set out in para-7 is that:-
7. …..
The application of the petitioner was not accepted by the chairman
and the petitioner was replied that such stage is lost by the
petitioner…..
4. Approaching
the Chairman directly with a written application and not forwarding
the same under the accepted modes of sending an application is
unknown to law. Besides that, the aforesaid averments are required
to be appreciated in light of the averments made in para-11, which
reads as under:-
11. The
petitioner submits that looking to the qualifications of the
petitioner and looking to the experience as a lecturer in the
college, it is beyond imagination of the petitioner to have
received such marks allocated to the petitioner i.e. 46 out of 100 in
Gujarati and 29 out of 100 in English. The system of the respondent
is that there is no provision of reassessment for the satisfaction of
the petitioner and also it is necessary to verify the marks of the
answer sheet on which questions, therefore, the marks are required to
be recorded. The request made by the petitioner to the second
respondent is turned down because of such system, the petitioner has
been discriminated and there is violation of article 14 of the
Constitution of India. The petitioner submits that the post of
Sahayak (unarmed) Police Sub Inspector is post for which the
respondent-authorities are the recruitment agency. Denying the post
of Sahayak (unarmed) Police Sub Inspector would amount to violation
of fundamental right in the matter of equal opportunity in Government
service and this would amount to violation of article 16 of the
Constitution of India.
(emphasis
supplied)
4.1 Though the
petitioner knows that there is no provision for reassessment and it
is also the settled position of law that reassessment is not
permissible, the learned Advocate for the petitioner has prayed for
the relief that, ‘the respondents be directed to
verify as to whether any proper assessment and counting or marks are
properly given and be further pleased to declare that the petitioner
is entitled to more marks in Gujarati and English than what are given
by the respondents’. This is possible only if the Court undertakes
exercise of reassessment of the answer sheets of the petitioner.
4.2 In para-13,
the petitioner has stated that:-
13. The
petitioner submits that several other candidates who are
high qualified are also given less marks. To the knowledge of the
petitioner, there are some candidates who are given more marks
compared to the candidate having higher qualification.
It is also submitted that the oral interview was conducted by the
office of the respondents whereas the assessment of the paper was
made by the agency other than the respondent. The petitioner has
reason to believe that there is a possibility of irregularity or
mischief in the matter of allocation of marks and, therefore, the
petitioner approaches the Honourable Court with a prayer of
the intervention of the Honourable Court to examine the papers
and to verify as to whether any irregularity, mischief or otherwise
is committed in the matter of assessment of answer sheet.
(emphasis
supplied)
4.3 Making such
a bald assertion without giving even one single name of any candidate
shows how casually the petitioner has approached this Court. To say
that ‘high qualified are given less marks’ and then in the second
breath to say that, ‘some candidates, who are given more marks
compared to the candidates having higher qualification’, are
self-contradictory exhibits and reflects the understanding of the
question involved in the petition by the petitioner.
4.4 Only
because the petitioner has scored 71% marks in B.A. Examination, 59%
in M.A. Examination and has passed LLB examination, does not
guarantee that the petitioner must do equally well in the examination
conducted by respondent No.2.
4.5 The fact
that the petitioner has participated not only in the written
examination but also in oral interview and after final result is
declared has come to this Court is nothing but taking a chance before
the selection authority and then to challenge the selection after
participating in the same.
5. The Court
finds no substance in this petition. This Court is of the opinion
that the petition is moved with ill-design and therefore, it deserves
to be dismissed with cost of Rs.7,500/- (Rupees Seven Thousand Five
Hundred Only), but then the Court restrains itself from imposing any
cost.
(Ravi R.Tripathi, J.)
*Shitole
Top