When youth of the country is gripped in the specter of unemployment, the arbitrary and whimsical stand of such kind of agency, like respondent 4, has compelled the unemployed persons in litigation which is avoidable if proper application of mind is genuinely made to the controversy” – A.C. Rao, J.

Gujarat High Court: A.C. Rao, J. while allowing the present petition has highlighted the mindset of Government agencies, to engage in vexatious litigation and not following the repeated orders of the Courts hence, overburdening the judicial system.

Petitioner who was a Graduate in Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry and was duly registered under the Gujarat Veterinary Council had applied for the post of Veterinary Officer in Gujarat Animal Husbandry Service which was conducted by State Public Service Commission(GPSC). It was the case of the petitioner that he belonged to the Scheduled Tribe category and was waitlisted at no. 1. still was denied the post, when eventually another candidate from the same category resigned within 1 yr of service. The petitioner submitted that according to the Resolutions provided by GPSC, whenever such kind of post fell vacant within one year on account of the eventualities mentioned, the post was to be filled in, from that particular category from which it had fallen vacant and resolution thus have full effect in case of the petitioner.

GPSC contended that resolution was essentially pertaining to Medical or Educational Department and therefore, cannot be utilized for other services. The respondent-State further contended that State had sent the recommendations to GPSC and it was the said authority that did not recommend the petitioner’s case. On the other hand, GPSC submitted that the representation of the petitioner was duly examined by the authority however, they found petitioner unfit since the candidate who had resigned had served for 1 year on the said post.

Advocate K.B. Pujara appearing for the petitioner vehemently contended that the stand taken by the respondent GPSC to discriminate against the petitioner and by deviating from applicable policy, the alleged stand was examined on several occasions by this Court, and the said stand was negated repeatedly.

Issue no 1. Whether the stand of the GPSC, which was reflected in the impugned communication, was just and proper?

The Court was not pleased by the stand of the GPSC and found that the reason for denial of appointment was per-se contrary to their policies. The policy was undisputedly applicable in the case of the petitioner. It was held that the stand of the respondent was unreasonable, arbitrary, capricious and not substantive in the eyes of law.

Issue no. 2.:  Whether the case of the petitioner was within the parameters of the policy of operating the waitlist ?

Court found that the stand of the petitioner has been examined by several Benches, the policy, undisputedly applies to the petitioner and it is the GPSC who has given a whimsical interpretation.

Hence, in the above-mentioned view, the petition was allowed.[Chirag Kishorbhai Joshi v. State of Gujarat, 2020 SCC OnLine Guj 2467, decided on 23-12-2020]

Suchita Shukla, Editorial Assistant has put this story together

Must Watch

maintenance to second wife

bail in false pretext of marriage

right to procreate of convict

Criminology, Penology and Victimology book release

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.