The bench of  Justices Sanjiv Khanna and MM Sunderesh has held that the decision of the State of Gujarat unacceptable of a departmental selection committee’s decision to reduce the qualifying marks after the publication of results to facilitate the appointment of a special category of candidates comprising women, persons with disabilities, and former members of the armed forces, to the post of ‘Supervisor Instructor, Class-III in various industrial training institutes across the state of Gujarat.

The Court held that reducing cut-off marks after the publication of results only for the purpose of providing employment to a particular category, when the others already acquired some right would be an affront to Article 14 of the Constitution of India, the Court held.

The bench hled that “Admittedly, in the case on hand, the appellants are entitled to get the respective post as per the advertisement issued. The said advertisement has not been amended. It was sought to be modified on the advice of the Government, though an earlier decision was taken on the similar line but wisely withdrawn. Fixing cut-off marks for a particular category has got a rationale behind it. Reducing it only for the purpose of providing employment to a particular category, when the others have already acquired some right would be an affront to Article 14 of the Constitution of India.”

Noting the facts the court found out that two advertisements were issued on 05.09.2015 to fill up the posts for Supervisor Instructor. The posts were carrying similar eligibility criteria. Prior to the issuance of the advertisement, the Departmental Selection Committee on 03.09.2015 resolved its procedure for the recruitment process. Out of 300 marks, cut-off marks were fixed at 60% equivalent to 180 marks for General Category; 57% equivalent to 171 marks for Socially and Educational Backward Class and 55% equivalent to 165 marks for Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe. It was amplified that any candidate scoring less than the cut-off marks would not be entitled for selection and appointment.

The aforesaid advertisement does not give any room for any interpretation otherwise.

The Selection Committee held a meeting on 05.10.2016 proposing to further relax the cut-off marks fixed only for the candidates belonging to the horizontal reserved categories. Accordingly, the cut-off marks for the General Category have been kept intact. Thereafter, a subsequent meeting was held on 17.12.2016 by which the earlier decision proposed to be implemented on 05.10.2016 was cancelled. The meeting was attended by all the members of the Selection Committee. The State Government took a decision to give effect to the special reservation despite it being a horizontal one. The aforesaid decision was made apparently for the reason that the percentage of candidates expected to fill the post meant for the aforesaid reservation, were found inadequate. The decision of the State Government was taken note of and incorporated in the Selection Committee meeting held on 26.12.2016.

The Court further held that “We agree with the submission of Mr. Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel, that the object behind the decision is laudable and the private respondents belong to the special category comprising of women, ex-servicemen and physically challenged. They are waiting to get their appointments for long years with fond hopes. They have the order of the Division Bench to their benefit which was occasioned by the policy decision of the State Government and the Selection Committee. Thus, we find the said submission merits moderation of the impact of our decision, at least insofar as the private respondents before us are concerned, as the others similarly placed being 16 fence sitters cannot be extended the same benefit. Probably, they would have either moved on or got some other jobs.”

Case Details:-

Civil Appeal No. 1355-2023
SURESHKUMAR LALITKUMAR PATEL & Ors
Versus 
THE STATE OF GUJARAT & Ors.

Appearances of the Advocates:-

For Petitioner(s)
Mr. Paramjit S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Sameer Parekh, Adv.
Ms. Tanya Chaudhary, Adv.
Ms. Pratyusha Priyadarshini, Adv.
Mr. Hemang Shah, Adv.
Mr. Prateek Khandelwal, Adv.
M/S. Parekh & Co., AOR

For Respondent(s)
Mr. Purvish Jitendra Malkan, AOR
Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Rajivkumar, AOR
Mr. Krishna M Singh, Adv.
Mr. Meenesh Dubey, Adv.
Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, Adv.
Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, AOR