Gujarat High Court

Gujarat Public Service Commission vs Bhumija Manuji Chavda on 31 March, 2021

Author:
Vineet Kothari

Bench:
Vineet Kothari
,
Biren Vaishnav

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

1. R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1105 of 2015
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15057 of 2014

With

2. R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1106 of 2015
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16620 of 2014
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR ORDERS) NO. 1 of 2016
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1106 of 2015
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16620 of 2014

With

3. R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1108 of 2015
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14330 of 2014

With

4. R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1109 of 2015
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14849 of 2014
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2015
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1109 of 2015
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14849 of 2014

With

5. R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1110 of 2015
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2125 of 2015
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR JOINING PARTY) NO. 2 of 2016

Page 1 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021
C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1110 of 2015
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2125 of 2015

With

R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1187 of 2015
6.
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14849 of 2014
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FIXING DATE OF EARLY HEARING) NO. 1 of
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1187 of 2015
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14849 of 2014

HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI

and

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV

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

1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to YES
see the judgment ?

2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? YES

3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of YES
the judgment ?

4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of YES
law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India
or any order made thereunder ?

==========================================================
GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
Versus
NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)
==========================================================

Page 2 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021
C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

Letters Patent Appeal No.1105 of 2015

MR DG SHUKLA, Counsel for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR KM ANTANI, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent No. 2
RULE SERVED BY DS (65) for the Respondent(s) No. 1

Letters Patent Appeal No.1106 of 2015

MR DG SHUKLA, Counsel for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR KM ANTANI, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent No. 2
MR YATIN N. OZA, Counsel with
MS. SHRUSHTI A THULA, Counsel for Respondent(s) No. 1

Civil Application No.1 of 2016

MR GM JOSHI, Senior Counsel with
Mr. VYOM H SHAH for the Applicant
MR KM ANTANI, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent
MR DG SHUKLA, Counsel for the Respondent
MR YATIN N. OZA, Counsel with MS. SHRUSHTI A THULA, Counsel for
Respondent

Letters Patent Appeal No.1108 of 2015

MR DG SHUKLA, Counsel for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR HRIDAY BUCH Counsel for the Respondent No.2733,34
MR VAIBHAV A VYAS, Counsel for Respondent No.7
MR YATIN OZA, Counsel with MS SRUSHTI A THULA, Counsel for
Respondent No.13, 4
MR SUDHIR NANAVATI, Sr. Counsel with MS ANUJA S NANAVATI,
Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1115, 1618, 19
MR SUNIT SHAH, Sr. Counsel with MR SANDEEP R LIMBAI, Counsel
for Respondent Nos. 13, 22
MS VIDHI J BHATT, Counsel for Respondent Nos. 2425, 26
MR MAHAVIR M GADHVI, Counsel for Respondent No. 833, 34.

Letters Patent Appeal No.1109 of 2015

MR DG SHUKLA, Counsel for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR KM ANTANI, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent No. 3
MR PRABHAKAR UPADYAY, Counsel for Respondent No.7
MR BHASKAR TANNA, Counsel for Tanna Associates for Respondent

Page 3 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021
C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

No.12
MR VAIBHAV A VYAS, Counsel for Respondent No.6
MR SANDEEP R LIMBANI, Counsel for Respondent No.5

Civil Application No. 1 of 2015

MR DG SHUKLA, Counsel for the Applicant
Rule served by DS
MR PRABHAKAR UPADHYAY
MR BHASKAR TANNA, Counsel for TANNA ASSOCIATES for
Respondent

Civil Application No.2 of 2015

MR VAIBHAV A VYAS, Counsel for Applicant
MR KM ANTANI, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent
MR PRABHAKAR UPADYAY, Counsel for the Respondent
MR DG SHUKLA, Counsel for the Respondent

Letters Patent Appeal No.1110 of 2015

MR DG SHUKLA, Counsel for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR KM ANTANI, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent
MR MB PUJARA, Counsel for the Respondent

Civil Application No.2 of 2016

MR RITURAJ M MEENA, Counsel for the Applicant
MS DIMPLE A THAKER, Counsel for the Applicant
MR DG SHUKLA, Counsel for the Respondent

Letters Patent Appeal No.1187 of 2015

MR BHASKAR TANNA, Counsel for TANNA ASSOCIATES for Appellant
Nos. 1­2.
MR KM ANTANI, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent No.1
RULE SERVED BY DS 5
MR PRABHAKAR UPADYAY, Counsel for the Respondent No.6
MR DG SHUKLA, Counsel for the Respondent No.2
MR SANDEEP R LIMBANI, Counsel for the Respondent No.4

Civil Application No.1 of 2020

Page 4 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021
C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

MR BHASKAR TANNA, Counsel for TANNA ASSOCIATES for Applicant
MR KM ANTANI, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent

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

CORAM: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI

And

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV

Date : 31/03/2021

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV)

1. These appeals have been filed against the common CAV

judgement of the learned Single Judge dated 11.06.2015 passed in

the respective Special Civil Applications, namely, Special Civil

Applications No. 15057 of 2014, 16620 of 2014, 14330 of 2014,

14849 of 2014, 2125 of 2015. Letters Patent Appeals No. 1105,

1106, 1108, 1109 and 1110 of 2015 have been filed by the Gujarat

Public Service Commission whereas Letters Patent Appeal No. 1187

of 2015 has been filed by the original petitioner of Special Civil

Application No. 14849 of 2014, a respondent also in Letters Patent

Appeal No. 1109 of 2015 filed by the GPSC.

Page 5 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

2. Facts in brief are as under:

2.1 The judgement under challenge is at the behest of the original

petitioners, who were treated as unsuccessful candidates by the

Gujarat Public Service Commission (GPSC) in the selection

process for the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests, Class ­

II (for short 'ACF') and Range Forest Officer, Class ­ II (for short

'RFO') conducted pursuant to the advertisement dated 01.03.2010

(Advertisement No. 209/2009­10).

2.2 On 01.03.2010, the GPSC published an advertisement inviting

applications for 47 posts of ACF (Class II) and 120 posts of RFO

(Class­II). The distribution of 167 posts (47 + 120) in the

advertisement is summarised as below:

Adv. Name of Total Posts Category wise posts. Category wise
No. Post reserved posts for
women

Open S.C. S.T. SEBC Open SC ST SEBC
209 Assistant 47 24 3 7 13 8 1 2 4
Conservator
of Forest
Class II
Range 120 60 6 19 35 18 1 6 11
Forest
Officer,
Class II
Total Posts 167 84 9 26 48 26 2 8 15

Page 6 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

2.3 What is evident from the summarized table produced

hereinabove is that for the purposes of female category in all

categories, 15 posts of ACF and 36 posts of RFO were reserved for

women. This was in accordance with the Gujarat Civil Services

(Reservation of Posts for Women) Rules, 1997 (for short 'Rules,

1997') which at the relevant time prescribed 30% reservation for

women candidates.

2.4 On 30.05.2010, the GPSC conducted a preliminary test. From

27.05.2013 to 02.06.2013, the GPSC conducted written tests. On

21.05.2014, GPSC declared the result of the main Written

Examination. 505 candidates had cleared the main Written

Examination and appeared for the Personal Interview scheduled

from 16.06.2014 to 31.07.2014. On 25.09.2014, GPSC declared the

final result of the competitive examination for the posts of ACF and

RFO. The preparation of the merit list and declaration of results on

25.09.2014 gave rise to the petitions as the original petitioners -

women candidates were declared unsuccessful.

Page 7 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

2.5 Pleadings of Letters Patent Appeal No. 1109 of 2015 were

considered for the purposes of analysis of the judgement of the

learned Single Judge in context of the issue under consideration.

The result dated 25.09.2014 made the following declarations in the

merit:

(i) Clause 8 of the result declared that with regard to women

reservation, as provided for in the Government Notification

dated 09.04.1997 and GAD Circular dated 22.05.1997, 51

women candidates (Gen ­ 26, SEBC ­ 15, SC ­ 02 and ST ­ 08)

are required to be selected.

(ii)The result stipulated that as against this, 19 women of

General Category, 6 women of SEBC Category, 1 woman of SC

Category and 04 women of ST Category, thus total 30 women

candidates have been selected.

(iii) Clause 9 of the result declared that the required number

of women candidates of SEBC, SC, ST and General categories

could not be selected even after relaxing 10% of the minimum

qualifying standard prescribed for the male candidates of their

respective categories.

1. The qualifying standards for general category male is 429.

Page 8 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

After relaxation of 10% marks, the qualifying marks for

general category female comes to 386.10 and hence general

category female candidates who have obtained more than

386 marks have been selected for recommendation to the

Government.

2. The qualifying standard of SEBC category male is 375

marks. After relaxation of 10% marks, the qualifying

marks for general category female comes to 337.50 and

hence SEBC category female candidates who have obtained

more than 337 marks have been selected for

recommendation to the Government.

3. The qualifying standard of SC category male is 387 marks.

After relaxation of 10% marks, the qualifying marks for SC

category female candidates comes to 348.30 and hence SC

category female candidates who have obtained more than

348.30 marks have been selected for recommendation to the

Government.

4. Similarly, the qualifying standard of ST category male is

316 marks. After relaxation of 10% marks, the qualifying

marks for ST category female comes to 284.40 and hence ST

Page 9 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

category female candidates who have obtained more than

284.40 marks have been selected for recommendation to the

government.

(iv) Clause 10 of the result, therefore, stipulated that out of

51 total posts reserved for women candidates of General,

SEBC, SC and ST categories, 19 women candidates of General,

6 women of SEBC category, 1 woman of SC category and 04

women candidates of ST category have been selected. Hence,

male candidates of their respective categories are selected

against the posts reserved for women of respective categories.

2.6 The aforesaid clauses prescribing qualifying standard of marks

and positioning male candidates in the deficit posts - 21 in number,

has given rise to the controversy under consideration.

3. Before the learned Single Judge, the unsuccessful female

candidates in essential raised the following four grounds of challenge

which the learned Single Judge classified under four heads as

follows:

"(A) The method, procedure and basis followed and adopted by

Page 10 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

GPSC for determining the qualifying standard (described by
GPSC as cut­off marks).

(B) Transferring the quota reserved for female candidates to
male candidates and also transferring the quota reserved for
candidates possessing special qualification to the candidates
not possessing such special qualification.

(C) Migrating the candidates.

(D) Adopting and applying criteria/policy which was not
declared and informed to the candidates (and thereby
changing the criteria in the midstream). "

3.1 With regard to heads (A) and (B) as noted above, perusal of the

order of the learned Single Judge would indicate that the learned

Single Judge held, on the submission made by the learned Counsel

for the respective petitioners, that the qualifying standard which

prescribed cut­off marks at the rate of 10% was introduced only after

the stage when the interview got concluded and at the stage after

the common merit list was prepared and when the GPSC started

preparing the selection list for the first time in the entire selection

process.

3.2 The learned Single Judge on examining the provisions of the

Rules governing the examination for ACF and RFO, namely, The

Assistant Conservator of Forest/Range Forest Officer

Page 11 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

Competitive Examination Rules, 2008 (for short 'the

Examination Rules') in especially considering Rules 9 and 19

thereof, found that the Examination Rules do not empower the

Commission to determine and prescribe minimum qualifying

marks/standard at any stage other than the two stages mentioned in

Rules 9 and 19 of the Examination Rules. According to the learned

Single Judge, despite this rule position, it was for the first time that

the GPSC introduced the qualifying marks standard after the

preparation of the merit list. The learned Single Judge extensively

discussed the position with regard to the Commission's legality in

providing such qualifying standards (as discussed in paras 16 to 18

thereof) and found that the prescription of qualifying standards after

the examinations were conducted in accordance with the

Examination Rules, at the stage of preparation of merit list, was

untenable. The learned Single Judge found that the concept of

qualifying standard of 10% for assessing the bench mark for

including the reserved quota for women in all the categories was

based on the marks obtained by the last male candidate in each

category of which 10% less was the yardstick prescribed for bringing

in a female within that category. It will be in the fitness of things to

Page 12 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

reproduce the relevant findings of the learned Single Judge on the

issue in question.

"16.5 Under the said Examination Rules or under the
Recruitment Rules, there is no provision (other than above­
quoted two Rules 9 and 19 in the Examination Rules), which
empower determination of qualifying marks/standard at any
stage, other than the said two stages mentioned in Rule 9 and
Rule 19 of the Examination Rules. The Examination Rules
and/or Recruitment Rules also do not contain any provision
(other than said two Rules) which empower the commission to
determine and prescribe minimum qualifying marks/standard
at any stage other than the two stages mentioned in Rule 9 and
Rule 19 of the Examination Rules. The Examination Rules
and/or the Recruitment Rules do not contain any provision in
light of which or on the strength of which minimum qualifying
marks/standard can be introduced and enforced by the
commission and that too at the stage which is not contemplated
and provided for in the Rules.

16.6 Despite this position the commission determined, for the
first time and introduced qualifying marks/standard
(described by the commission as cut­off marks), after
conclusion of stage of preliminary examination and the stage of
written test and the stage of interview and after general /
common merit list was prepared on the basis of aggregate
marks secured by the candidates during the written test and
interview.

17. The Examination Rules prescribe the procedure for
conducting examinations for selection of candidates for the said
two posts. Rule 3 of the said Examination Rules, 2008
prescribes, inter alia, that upon receiving requisition from the
Government the Commission shall hold combined competitive
examination for selection of candidates. Rule 4 of the said
Examination Rules provides that examination shall be held in
two successive stages whereby preliminary examination for
selection of candidates and then main examination (written

Page 13 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

test and interview) will be conducted. The said preliminary
examination will comprise objective type test. At the second
stage, main examination for final selection of candidates has to
be conducted. The said main examination comprises written
test and interview. Part­I of the Schedule to the said
Examination Rules, 2008 prescribes, inter alia, that the
preliminary examination shall consist one paper of objective
type and shall carry 150 marks. It also provides that the
number of candidates to be allowed to appear in the main
examination shall be about 15 times the approximate number
of vacancies advertised. With reference to the main
examination, the said Part I of the schedule provides that the
written examination shall consist five papers of conventional
type. Part III further provides that paper one, paper two and
paper three will be compulsory papers and each paper will
carry 100 marks and paper four and paper five will be optional
papers and each paper will carry 200 marks. Rule 9 of
Examination Rules, prescribes the procedure to be
followed by the Commission and provides, inter alia,
that the Commission shall arrange names of the
candidates in order of merit on the basis of aggregate
marks finally awarded to each candidate in the main
examination (i.e. written and interview test) and in that
order, the Commission shall recommend the candidates
for appointment. The said provision under Rule 9 is subject
to the proviso which prescribes that where the vacancies
reserved for the candidates belonging to SC or ST or SEBC
category cannot be filled ­ up on the basis of qualifying
aggregate marks fixed for general category, the Commission
may relax the standard of aggregate marks to make up
for the deficiency in the reserved posts. Thus, the said rule also
confers power to relax the qualifying standard in the event
vacancies reserved for candidates belonging to SC, ST or SEBC
category cannot be filled­up. Rule 19 obliges the commission
to fix qualifying marks and it further provides that the
candidates who obtain minimum qualifying marks, as
may be fixed by the Commission in the preliminary
examination shall be allowed to appear in the main
examination subject to their satisfying the eligibility criteria

Page 14 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

and that the candidates who obtain minimum qualifying
marks as may be fixed by the Commission in the main
examination (written) shall be called for interview. The
expression the candidates who have obtained minimum
qualifying marks as may be fixed by the commission... ...
signifies and clarifies that the said provisions oblige the GPSC
to fix minimum qualifying marks at the stage of
preliminary examination stage (for allowing entry to
appear for written test) and at the stage of main
examination / written test (for allowing entry to appear in
interview). The said expression indicates that the candidates
who obtain marks fixed by GPSC as minimum qualification
can enter into next level. The said Rule 19 also empowers the
Commission to relax the said qualifying standard at the
stage of examination i.e. in preliminary examination or
in the main examination (written), if the Commission is of
the opinion that sufficient number of candidates from SC or ST
or SEBC category are not likely to be available for main
examination (written) or for interview which is clarified by the
expression "... ... ... may be allowed to appear........by relaxing
the standard .."..

17.1 In light of said provision it comes out that (a) the Rules do
not prescribe any particular percentage or marks as qualifying
standard; (b) however the Rules prescribe the stage/s when the
qualifying standard should be fixed viz. at the stage of
preliminary examination (for allowing entry to appear in
written test) and at the stage of written test (for allowing entry
to appear in interview); (c) once the candidates cross the stage
of main examination (i.e. the written test and interview), then
further requirement in form of qualifying standard for
entry in selection list (i.e. list containing names and marks
of successful candidates in the written test and interview) is
not prescribed by the Rules; (d) Rules 9 and 19 indicate that
actually the said Rules aim at informing the qualifying
standard to the students so that they know the minimum
marks/standard they must achieve to reach next level.

18. Since the Commission had not fixed the qualifying

Page 15 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

standard at any stage contemplated by the Rules (and until the
stage of interview test got concluded) the candidates were
not aware about the qualifying standard. Actually, the
candidates were not even aware as to whether any qualifying
standard is fixed or not. It is pertinent to mention at this stage
that respondent GPSC determined, settled, adopted and
applied different qualifying standard with regard to each of the
four categories mentioned in the advertisement.

18.1 In present cases controversy and dispute have arisen on
account of the basis adopted and the procedure and method
followed by respondent GPSC for determining and settling the
qualifying standard (cut­off marks) and the said method,
procedure and basis have given birth to the objection that
GPSC is neither justified nor authorized to determine
qualifying standard for female candidates (for filling up the
vacancies in reserved quota) on the basis of and by taking
into account the marks secured by last male candidate
i.e. the male candidate, who, depending on the number of
vacancies available of particular category, is the "last
candidate required (depending on number of notified vacancy)
for complying the quota in that category and at such belated
stage.

18.2 On this count, it is pertinent that for the purpose of
determining the qualifying standard the respondent GPSC
first picked­up the General / Unreserved Category and took
into account total number of vacancies in that category.
Thereafter the respondent GPSC started from the candidate at
the top in the common merit list (i.e. the candidate with highest
marks) and, while descending, it started identifying only male
candidates belonging to the said / particular category and
proceeded in descending order by taking into account marks of
only male candidates in that particular category (i.e. excluding
all female candidates/marks obtained by female candidates in
that category) and continued to descend in similar
manner until it reached the male candidate who,
depending on the number of notified vacancies in the
particular category, would be the last male candidate

Page 16 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

required to fill­up the vacancies in that particular
category. The marks secured by such last male candidate of
that particular category are treated and adopted and applied
by GPSC as the qualifying marks/standard (what is described
by GPSC as cut­off marks) for the respective category. The
procedure and method followed by GPSC is explained by it in
paragraphs No.6.2 to 6.4 of its affidavit dated 23.2.2015 filed
in SCA No.14849 of 2014 and it is further explained in para
No.2 of its additional affidavit dated 24.2.2015.

18.3 Besides this even in the notification dated 25.9.2014
GPSC itself has admitted and stated that: The candidates at
Rank No...... ST being female candidates have been selected
after relaxing the minimum qualifying standard prescribed for
male candidates of their respective categories. (Emphasis
supplied)

18.4 From the details mentioned in said affidavits it has
emerged that for combined (i.e. ACF + RFO) 84 position of
unreserved / general category, 26 position are reserved (@ 30%
of total number of notified vacancy for the said category) for
female candidates and for selecting female candidates for said
position, the marks secured by the male candidate in general
category whose name is listed at Sr.No.78 in the general /
common merit list is treated as the marks of last candidate
in general / unreserved category (though only 58
position / vacancies are to filled­up) and the marks
secured by the said male candidate at Sr.No.78 is
recognized as minimum qualifying marks/standard for
the female candidates in general / unreserved category
on the premise that the said candidate at Sr.No.78 is last male
candidate to enter the selection list in general/unreserved
category and the said marks are then adopted and applied as
benchmark for selection of female candidates and for
complying the reserved quota. In response to the query, the
learned counsel for GPSC submitted and clarified that the
standard/basis which came to be fixed, settled and adopted in
above mentioned manner (as qualifying marks/standard) is
treated as yardstick and benchmark for all purposes including

Page 17 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

the process and purpose of filling­up the reserved quota for
women in other three categories as well and for the candidates
seeking selection in the quota reserved for persons holding
special qualification.

18.5 It is relevant to mention that the stage of finalizing
selection list and declaring successful candidates was reached
after crossing three stages of screening. It is also relevant to
note that the respondent GPSC also did not adopt the marks
secured by a candidate in particular category regardless or
irrespective of the fact that such last candidate is male
candidate or female candidate but the respondent GPSC
consciously started the process by picking up the marks
secured only by male candidates in respective categories
and proceeded going downwards while taking into
account the marks secured by only male candidates and
it consciously opted for and adopted marks secured by such last
male candidate as the qualifying standard.

18.6 It is pertinent that neither the Recruitment Rules
nor the Reservation Rules nor the Examination Rules
provide for or contemplate or permit such procedure
and method and/or authorize GPSC to follow such
procedure. Such method, basis and procedure is, therefore,
not permissible under the Rules. Actually, such procedure
militates against and frustrates diligent, honest and genuine
and complete implementation of quota reserved for female
candidates of all four categories.

19. The basis/standard adopted and the procedure and
method followed by GPSC for determining and settling the
qualifying marks/standard is not only contrary to and beyond
the purview of the Rules or de hors the Rules but there is no
rationale for the decision / action of adopting marks secured by
only male candidate as the base / benchmark and the
GPSC has not offered any explanation or justification
for such decision and the procedure, basis and method
followed and adopted by GPSC are irrational,
unjustified and do not find support from the applicable

Page 18 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

Rules and are not sustainable.

20. The Court would hasten to clarify that the aforesaid view
and finding is not to say or to suggest and it does not mean
that the Court finds fault with the principle and/or practice of
applying the qualifying standard and/or with the practice of
not relaxing the qualifying standard below certain extent. Nay.
Not the least. What, in the opinion of the Court, is objectionable
and untenable, is the manner in which GPSC determined the
qualifying marks/standard and the procedure it followed and
the basis which it adopted (wherein it took into account marks
secured by only male candidates) for the said purpose and not
the decision to determine and apply qualifying
marks/standard. In this background and in this view of the
matter, the Court is convinced to hold that the impugned
method, basis and procedure are incapable of approval and
acceptance. The very basis adopted by GPSC is fundamentally
erroneous and irrational and untenable."

[Emphasis Supplied]

3.3 In short, the learned Single Judge found that prescription of

applying the qualifying standard with the practice of relaxing the

qualifying standard for female candidates with reference to

minimum qualifying marks for male candidates was faulty.

However, in para 25 of the decision, the learned Single Judge

clarified that the action of determining qualifying marks and/or the

action of allowing relaxation therein essentially are not sustained on

account of the manner in which the said process is carried out and

the basis which the GPSC adopted and not for want of jurisdiction to

Page 19 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

do so. The learned Single Judge held that the action of allowing

relaxation is not sustained also because it is tainted with vice of

discrimination and the error of not applying relevant factors and not

for want of power.

"25. For the foregoing reasons and in light of the facts, the
impugned method and procedure followed by GPSC and the
basis adopted by GPSC for fixing / determining the qualifying
standard as well as the qualifying marks/standard
determined and settled and adopted by GPSC are not
sustainable and deserve to be set aside and are consequently set
aside and as corollary all subsequent and consequential
decisions and actions by GPSC which are taken in
pursuance of and on the basis of such qualifying
standard (decided in impugned method) fall and stand
vitiated. At this stage, it is necessary to further clarify that the
action of determining qualifying marks / standard and/or the
action of allowing relaxation therein are, essentially, not
sustained on account of the manner in which the said
process is carried out and the basis which GPSC
adopted and not for want of power. The action of allowing
relaxation is not sustained also because it is tainted with vice
of discrimination and the error of not applying relevant factors
and not for want of power.

[Emphasis Supplied]

3.4 On the second limb of the fall­out of this qualifying standard,

the learned Single Judge held that by virtue of this operation of the

qualifying standard of 10%, the process of selection of female

candidates seeking selection in the reserved quota caused a

substantial shortfall in the number of female candidates being

Page 20 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

selected, though sufficient number of female candidates in each

category who meet with and fulfill the eligibility criteria prescribed

by the Rules and notified in the advertisement are available. On the

submission of the learned Counsel for GPSC that this 10%

relaxation of GPSC was based on the opinion of the learned

Advocate General, the learned Single Judge held that such an

opinion taken years back had no foundation of a statutory backing

and had no nexus with the post in question and therefore could not

have been relied upon.

3.5 As a result of the shortfall of 21 vacancies not being fulfilled in

as a result of the process of restricted intake of female candidates in

each of the four categories inasmuch as out of 51 vacancies only 30

female candidates found their place as a result of the qualifying

standard and the treatment by GPSC in transferring these 21

positions to male candidates and their consequential selection was

also a subject matter of consideration before the learned Single

Judge. Having held that on the conjoint reading of the recruitment

rules, relaxation of qualifying standards was faulty, the learned

Single Judge held that when the recruitment rules and the

Page 21 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

reservation rules are read, then the recruitment examination rules

provided that the qualifying standards ought to be relaxed to

accommodate required number of candidates of reserved category

and the Commission must strive to fill up the quota reserved for

female candidates belonging to reserved categories even by relaxing

the qualifying standards fixed by it rather than transferring the

position to the male candidates. By doing so and restricting the

intake of female candidates, the female reservation got constricted

which was not in consonance with the Rules.

3.6 On reliance placed by the GPSC on the Circulars dated

09.04.1997 and 22.05.1997 providing for a clarification that in the

event, a requisite number of female candidates are not available,

then the vacancies may be filled up by male candidates of the

respective categories, the learned Single Judge on an extensive

discussion of the Circulars found that a recourse to such Circulars

could not be taken when the Examination Rules obliged the

Commission to fill up the notified vacancies of the reserved quota to

the fullest extent and when female candidates were available.

Page 22 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

3.7 In other words, the learned Single Judge found that the

benefit of reservation of women as prescribed under the Reservation

Rules got restricted by virtue of providing for 10% relaxation and

transferring of the posts - 21 reserved for women to the male

candidates was contrary to the spirit of the Recruitment Rules and

the Reservation Rules and the petitions were therefore allowed. The

final result dated 25.09.2014 and the subsequent revision of result

carried out by the GPSC based on the decision of the Apex Court in

the case of
Union of India vs. Ramesh Ram
[(2010) 7 SCC 234

was quashed and set aside. The learned Single Judge in para 57

held as under:

"57. In the result and as an upshot of foregoing discussions:

(a) the qualifying marks / standard (described as cut­off
marks by GPSC) determined and applied by the respondent
GPSC by following and adopting earlier discussed method,
procedure and base are, for the recorded reasons, set aside.

(b) Consequently, all subsequent decisions and actions which
are based on the said qualifying standard and/or which are
taken pursuant to and/or on the basis of and by applying the
said qualifying standard / cut­off marks do not survive and all
such consequential decisions, steps and actions are set aside.

(c) In the result and for the recorded reasons, impugned
selection list notified by GPSC on 25.9.2014 stands quashed.

Thus, the list revised by GPSC vide notification dated
23.1.2015 automatically falls and does not survive.

Page 23 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

(d) The action of the respondent GPSC of categorizing part
of the notified vacancies reserved for women candidates and
also out of the vacancies reserved for candidates with special
subject, as vacant and the further / subsequent action of
transferring the position out of reserved quota for women
candidates to male candidates and out of the quota reserved for
candidates with special subject, to other candidates not
holding said special qualification, also stand quashed.

(e) The action of considering the meritorious reserved category
candidates (who secured their position in general/open
category on account of their performance) in their respective
reserved category only because they availed benefit of
"concession" which cannot be considered as "relaxation in
merits" also set aside since it is found to be contrary to the
decision by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jitendra Kumar
Singh (supra).

(f) So far as Special Civil Application No.14849/2014 is
concerned, it stands partly allowed inasmuch as petitioners'
objection against the qualifying standard fixed by GPSC and
the objection against adopting criterion of 10% for relaxing
qualifying standard and the objection against considering the
marks obtained by last male candidate as cut­off marks /
qualifying standard are accepted and the selection list
prepared on such basis is set aside. However, the contention
that meritorious reserved category candidates who secured
position in general/unreserved (open) category list should be,
for the purpose of complying reserved quota, considered in their
respective reserved category is not accepted. Horizontal
reservation, even compartmentalized reservation, cannot be
maintained by taking away a slice from the quota for vertical
reservation.

(g) So far as Special Civil Applications No.14330/2014,
14331/2014 and Special Civil Applications No. 16620/2014
are concerned, the said petitions are also partly allowed
inasmuch as the objection against qualifying standard fixed by
GPSC by considering marks of last candidate as the base is

Page 24 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

accepted and the qualifying standard determined by GPSC on
such basis and the selection list are set aside and the
objection against adopting criterion of 10% for relaxing
said qualifying standard is also accepted. However, so far
as the further relief claimed by the petitioner in Special Civil
Application no.16620 of 2014 that her case should be
considered for the post of AFO is concerned, it is clarified that
at this stage, the said request cannot be considered because
now the process of preparing fresh selection list will have to be
undertaken and it shall be finalized afresh.

(h) So far as Special Civil Application No.13857/2014 is
concerned, the said petition is also partly allowed inasmuch as
the decision of applying said qualifying standard and the
decision to apply criterion of 7% for relaxing qualifying
standard and the decision to consider part of the notified
position from the quota reserved for candidates with special
subject (i.e. the candidates holding specified special
qualification) as vacant and the further decision to
transfer such position to the candidates not holding
qualification of special subject by treating such notified
position as vacant, is set aside.

(i) So far as Special Civil Application No.15057/2015 is
concerned, having regard to the fact that at the relevant time,
only one contention/objection was raised and pressed in
service, viz. the impugned notification is bad and
unsustainable because waiting list is not prepared and notified
under the said notification, the said petition is, therefore,
examined in light of the said singular contention and with
regard to the said objection (of the petitioner in Special Civil
Application No.15057/2015) it is found and held that in light
of applicable Rules said objection is not sustainable. Though
the said petitioner did not raise any other contention with
regard to the notification and/or selection list, it is clarified
that the decision with reference to the qualifying standard /
cut­off marks and the selection list (with regard to the
objections by other petitioners) will apply to and will govern the
case of the petitioner in SCA No.15057/2015 also.

(j) So far as Special Civil Applications No.1100/2015 and

Page 25 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

1141/2015 are concerned, the said petitions are also partly
allowed and the decision of the respondent GPSC of
considering the candidates who availed benefit of relaxation /
reservation though they have not availed benefit of relaxation
in qualifying standard, is, it being contrary to the decision by
Apex Court in case of Jitendra Kumar Singh (supra), set aside.

(k) So far as Special Civil Application No.2125/2015 is
concerned, in view of the fact that the qualifying standard /
cut­off marks decided by the GPSC is set aside, the decision
with regard to allotment of any candidate to the post of ACF or
RFO will have to be taken afresh by the respondent GPSC after
preparing fresh selection list and that, therefore, at this stage,
the declaration as prayed for by the petitioner (i.e. to allot the
said petitioner to the post of ACF) cannot be granted. However,
so far as other contentions which are similar and common as
in other petitions, are concerned, they shall be governed by the
conclusion with reference to other petitions. It is clarified that
if the petitioner has any grievance with regard to her allotment
after fresh selection list is prepared, then at that stage, it would
be open and permissible to the petitioner to take appropriate
action against the decision by GPSC. However, in view of the
Court's decision with reference to the qualifying standard /
cut­off marks, the consequential actions including allotment of
the candidates to the higher post will not survive and that
process also will have to be taken afresh. "

[Emphasis Supplied]

4. Mr. D.G. Shukla, learned Counsel for the Gujarat Public

Service Commission has invited the attention of the Court to the

relevant provisions. He would defend the procedure and the base to

decide the qualifying marks/standard (cut­off marks adopted by the

GPSC) and the result declared on 25.09.2014 and the subsequent

Page 26 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

action of transferring the reserved quota for women candidates to

male candidates. He would invite the attention of the Court to the

Affidavit­in­reply filed by the GPSC.

4.1 Mr. Shukla would submit that after conducting of the

Preliminary Test, the Written Examination and the Physical

Endurance Test, the results were declared. He would submit that

the concept of horizontal reservation and filling of the posts of

women was in accordance with the law laid down by the Apex Court

in the case of
Rajesh Kumar Daria vs. Rajasthan Public

Service Commission
[(2007) 8 SCC 685]. He would submit that

as
laid down by
the Apex Court in
the said decision
, social

reservation in favour of categories of SC, ST and OBC under
Article

16(4)
are "vertical reservations" whereas special reservations in

favour of Physically Handicapped, Women etc. under
Articles 16(1)

and
15(3)
are "horizontal reservations".

4.2 Mr. Shukla would submit that the Notification dated

09.04.1997 issued by the General Administration Department

(GAD) prescribing the Gujarat Civil Services (Reservation of

Page 27 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

Posts for Women) Rules, 1997 prescribed rules providing for 30%

of posts for women belonging to all categories. On 22.05.1997

the GAD issued a Notification. He would take the court to the

Notification and explain that the Notification envisaged that if

women candidates are not available then the posts can be filled by

the male candidates.

4.3 Mr. Shukla would also invite the attention of the Court to the

paper book of the appeal wherein file notings have been produced by

the original petitioner wherein extensively considering the opinion of

the Advocate General, a decision was taken by the Commission on

25.10.2001 to select women candidates after relaxing 10% of the

minimum qualifying standards prescribed for the male candidates of

their respective categories. An additional affidavit has also been

filed by Mr. Shukla during the course of hearing on behalf of the

GPSC. Relying on the affidavit, he would submit that the appellant

Commission had taken a policy decision on 25.10.2001 to select

women after relaxing 10% of the minimum qualifying standards

prescribed for male candidates of their respective categories. The

said policy decision was taken based on the opinion of the then

Page 28 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

Advocate General, Gujarat dated 06.10.2001. The opinion of the

Advocate General, the file notings and the policy decision dated

25.10.2001 are on record. The same are quoted hereinbelow for

ready reference:

"Exparte:

The Secretary,

Gujarat Public Service Commission

Ahmedabad. .... Querist.

OPINION:

In exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to
Article
of the Constitution of India, the State Government has

made the rules known as 'Gujarat Civil Services (Reservation

of Posts for Women) Rules, 1997. Rule 2 of the said rules reads

as under:­

"2. Reservation of posts for women ­ Notwithstanding
anything contained in any rules or orders relating to
recruitment to public services and posts in connection
with the affairs of the State­

(a) there shall be reserved in favour of women belonging
to the Scheduled Castes thirty percent of the posts
reserved in favour of such Castes;

Page 29 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

(b) there shall be reserved in favour of women belonging
to the Scheduled Tribes thirty percent of the posts
reserved in favour of such Tribes;

(c) there shall be reserved in favour of women belonging
to the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes
thirty percent of the posts reserved in favour of such
Classes;

(d) there shall be reserved in favour of women thirty
percent of the posts not being posts reserved in favour of
the Scheduled Castes; Scheduled Tribes and Socially
and Educationally Backward Classes. "

2. The Gujarat Public Service Commission invited
applications for Class I and Class II posts in Gujarat
Administrative Services. Since there were 70,000 applications,
the Public Service Commission held Elimination Test. The
results of the Elimination Test are under process. On the result
of the Elimination Test, candidates will be required to compete
at the Written Test and the Oral Test to be held. The results of
Elimination Test are not to be considered for the purpose of
assessment at the Written Test and Oral Test to be
subsequently held.

3. The querist - Secretary, Gujarat Public Service
Commission, therefore seeks my opinion as to whether it is
possible for the Commission to relax the standard of merit for
Elimination Test for women candidates so as to enable them to
go in for further competitive test.

Page 30 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

4. For the benefit of the women candidates, a general policy
decision can be taken by the Public Service Commission to
grant relaxation in qualifying marks determined for
elimination test. This policy is legally permissible under

article 16
of the Constitution of India.

5.
In 1999(9) Judgments Today 152 (
Haridas Parsedia vs.
Urmila Shakya & Ors
) the Supreme Court has observed as
under:

"We have, therefore, to see whether the State of Madhya
Pradesh, in its discretion and within permissible limits
of
Article 16
, had taken any policy decision to give
general relaxation of passing marks to SC/ST
candidates appearing at the departmental
examinations."

The Court held that ­

"Even when SC/ST candidates compete among
themselves for the reserved category posts they are
required to pass the written examination. For them the
passing marks remain the same i.e. 40% as compared to
general category candidates for whom 50% passing
marks are prescribed."

Thus, the qualifying marks in respect of reserved category
candidates were reduced from 50% to 40% marks.

Page 31 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

6.
In AIR 1997 SC 303 (
Chattar Singh vs. State of
Rajasthan
) the Supreme Court has examined the scheme of
elimination test. In para 14 of its judgement, the Supreme
Court observed as under:

"The object is to eliminate unduly long list of candidates
so that opportunity to sit for main examination should be given
to candidates numbering 15 times the notified posts/vacancies
in various services in various services; in other words for every
one post/vacancy there should be 15 candidates. There would
be wider scope to get best of the talent by way of competition in
the examination. The ultimate object is to get at least three
candidates or as is prescribed, who may be called for vivo­voce.
Therefore, the lowest range of aggregate marks as cut off for
general candidates should be so worked out as to get the
required number of candidates including OBCs, Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The lowest range would,
therefore, be worked out in such a way that candidates
numbering 15 times the notified posts/vacancies would be
secured so as to afford an opportunity to the candidates to
compete in the main examination.

Under the provision, if that range has not been reached
by the candidates belonging to the SCs or the STs, there may be
5% further cut off from the last range worked out for the
general candidates so as to declare them as qualified for
appearing in the main examination. In other words, where
candidates belonging to the SCs and STs numbering 15 times
the total vacancies reserved for them are not available then
Service Commission has to go down further and cut off 5% of
the marks from the lowest of the range prescribed for general
candidates and then declare as eligible the SC and ST
candidates who secured 5% less than the lowest range fixed by
P.S.C. for general candidates so as to enable them to appear for
the main examination."

7.
In AIR 1999 SC 2894 (Dr. Preeti Srivastava and another

Page 32 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(
s)

vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
) the Supreme Court held that "it
is basically, for an expert body like the Medical Council of
India to determine whether in the common entrance
examination, lower qualifying marks can be prescribed for the
reserved category of candidates as against the general category
of candidates; and if so, how much lower. There cannot,
however, be a big disparity in the qualifying marks for the
reserved category of candidates and the general category of
candidates at the post­graduate level." The Supreme Court did
not approve of the cut off percentage of 20% for the reserved
category and 45% for the general category saying that the
disparity of qualifying marks being 20% for the reserved
category and 45% for the general category is too great a
disparity to sustain public interest at the level of post­graduate
medical training and education.

8. In the background of the aforesaid decisions of the
Supreme Court, the Public Service Commission can determine
a lower qualifying marks for women candidates, in comparison
with the male candidates of respective sources (categories) of
recruitment, both at the Elimination Test as well as
Competitive Test which the Public Service Commission is
conducting for selection of candidates. The percentage of marks
to be lowered is to be determined by the Public Service
Commission in the context of the aforesaid decisions of the
Supreme Court. It can be within the range of 5 to 15 per cent.

Page 33 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

Advise accordingly.

Ahmedabad, (S.N. Shelat)
Date : 6th October, 2001 Advocate General
Gujarat State"

FILE NOTING:

(TRANSLATED VERSION )

By two notifications dated 09/04/1997 of the General
Administration Department, the provision was made by the
State Government to keep 30% posts reserved in the respective
category for the appointment of women on all services and
posts. Moreover, at the stage of direct recruitment in the
government services, it is provided to give five years relaxation
in the upper age limit. This order has come into effect from
09/04/1997. Thereafter, a clarification was made by the
General Administration Department vide Circular dated
22/05/1997 regarding several issues raised in the said matter,
which contains below mentioned important provisions.

The seat of women candidate could be allotted to the male
candidate if sufficient women candidates are not available for
seats reserved for women. The government aims to fill 30% of

Page 34 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

the total vacancies by women candidates. Therefore, after
computing the candidates admitted on the basis of merit at the
time of recruiting 30% posts, remaining of women candidates
in 30% could be admitted on reservation basis.

2. Following the opinion of the Advocate General
regarding the standard of selection for women candidates in
respect of the government's policy of reserving 30% seats for
women candidates, the Commission has adopted a standard of
selection by decision dated 25/10/2001 to keep the qualifying
standard as low as 10% of the standard of male candidates in
that category. Following the decision of the Commission, such
procedure is followed while finalizing the result in personal
interview of various vacancies conducted by the Commission.

3. The commission issued advertisement for the
Medical Officer (Ayurveda) Class­II vide Sr.no.100/2005­2006,
containing total 170 seats. Out of the said 170 seats, 40 seats
were reserved for ST, wherein 12 seats were reserved for
women. In personal interview of the said post, the commission
had fixed qualifying standard of 40 marks for Male
Candidates and 36 marks for female candidates for general
category and for reserved posts, 25 marks for male candidates
and 22 marks for female candidates. In 28 seats out of 40 seats
of ST, two candidates were selected who obtained 25 marks,
whereas in 12 seats of women candidates, three candidates

Page 35 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

obtained 25 marks and remaining nine candidates obtained 22
marks were selected, whereas, other women candidates
obtaining 22 makrs were not included in selection list. Among
these candidates, Dr. Komal Katara and another candidate
had sought relief in the matter from the Hon'ble High Court, In
which, the judgment of the Special Civil Application was in
favour of the Commission and the candidates had preferred
L.P.A, wherein the Division Bench had delivered judgment on
10/09/2009. It was ordered therein to prepare merit after
including ST candidates (Male or Female), who have obtained
25 marks or more, in the merit list of 28 posts and after
considering female candidates, who have obtained less than 25
marks but more than 22 marks, against 12 reserved posts for
women candidates. Following this judgment, the result of the
said post was sent for recommendation of the government and
accordaingly, the candidates have been appointed.

4. The Commission or the State had not drawn the
attention of the Hon'ble High Court towards the provision of
the circular dated 22/05/1997 of the General Administration
Department and same thing happened in L.P.A., too.
Therefore, the Commission and the State had preferred M.C.A.
regarding the judgment of the division bench of the Hon'ble
High Court. The judgment of M.C.A. No.411/2010 was
delivered on 16/03/2010, while remaining three M.C.A. filed
by the Commission and one M.C.A. filed by the State are still

Page 36 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

pending. In the judgment of M.C.A., the Assistant Government
Pleader had submitted that as explained in point no.7 of the
circular dated 22/05/1997 of the General Administration
Department, the women candidates can be appointed only on
the reserved posts, when the posts are reserved for the women
candidates and remaining 70% posts are not required to be
taken into consideration. The said submission was not accepted
by the Hon'ble High Court and confirmed the judgment
delivered earlier.

5. Advocate General's opinion was sought by the
Commission whether the facts of order dated 10/09/2009 of
the Honourable High Court are applicable to all
advertisements or it is only applicable to the advertisement of
Medical Officer (Ayurved) Class­2. Advocate General's opinion
was received vide his letter dated 24/12/2009 stating that
until the judgement of Review Petition is pronounced, this
judgement is applicable to all the advertisements. Hence, the
Commission has followed this judgement accordingly in the
advertisements and it is continued. That is, female candidates
who are included in the merit list of general post other than the
female reservation, have been included on the basis of merit
and separate merit list for female candidates with respect to
reserved posts has been prepared.

6. There is provision in the circular of General

Page 37 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

Administration Department dated 22/05/1997 to consider
30% of the reserved posts for the candidates included on the
basis of merit. Whereas, in view of the above mentioned
judgement, the Commission has not considered meritorious
female candidates against 30% reserved posts. They are
considered in the merit list of remaining post other than the
reserved posts of woman.

(7) As per the same standard, the result of the exams
of Gujarat Administrative Services Class­ 1/2 published on 13­
05­2010 have been prepared. In which, 23 female candidates
have been selected as meritorious candidates who were
fulfilling the eligibility criteria meant for the male candidates
and have not been counted in reference to the posts of female
reservation.

(8) The Judgments are rendered by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court regarding Vertical and Horizontal

reservations. In which the latest judgment is given on 03­06­
2010 in the case of Public Service Commission, Uttranchal ­
Versus ­ Mamta Bist and others. Looking to the other
judgments of the Supreme Court mentioned in this judgment
as well as considering the details of this judgment, the female
reservation has been included in Horizontal reservation. Hence,
while making the selection for the seats of female reservation,
the meritorious female candidates shall also be counted in

Page 38 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

reference to the reserved post earmarked for them. In such
circumstances, presently four Review Petitions are pending in
the Hon'ble High Court. Therefore, it is to consider whether it
would be proper to take steps to get the said petitions heard

first by giving reference of Supreme Court judgments OR to

take steps to correct the result in view of Supreme Court
judgments in the cases where result is published and
appointment process is pending.

(9) The legal opinion is to be taken in this case
because, after the Commission has declared the result of the
post of Class ­ 1 / Class ­2 on 13­05­2010, a legal notice has
been issued to the Government and Public Service Commission
by Tanna Associates through its letter dtd. 05­07­2010. Public
Service Commission has received this notice on 08­07­010. In
this Legal Notice, two recent judgments of the Supreme Court
have been referred.

(
1) Union of India Vs. Ramesh, Ram and Others
.

C.A. no. 4310 ­ 4311 / 2010 ­ Judgment dtd. ­07­05­2010
­ and ­
(2) Public Service Commission, Uttranchal ­ Vs. ­
Mamta Bist and others.

Civil Application no. 5989/ 2007, Judgment dtd. 03­06­2010

Referring these two judgments, it has been submitted that the
necessary procedure should be followed after reviewing the

Page 39 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

result declared on 13­05­2010 and the recommendations done
regarding the same by the Public Service Commission to the
Government on 03­08­2010. Hence, before carrying out further
procedure by the Government in reference to the appointment of
Class­1 and Class­2, necessary discussion / procedure is to be
done regarding the Legal Notice received from Tanna
Associates.

(10) From the above details, it can be observed that
while discussing 30 percent reservation for women, the Public
Service Commission is required to take into consideration/
decide upon two issues/ factors. (1) 30% reservation for women
in direct recruitments of Class ­1/2 posts through competitive
exams and (2) 30% reservation for women in direct
recruitments on the basis of interview without competitive
exam. While discussing the issue, it has to be also taken into
consideration that the norms of commission in different types
of direct recruitments with reference to 30 percent reservation
for women remain identical and non­contradictory.
Additionally, it is to be seen that any further procedure in this
regard does not lead to violation/ contempt of court until any
modification takes place in the judgment of Gujarat High
Court mentioned above at para­4.

(11) On 08/01/2011, an informal meeting was
arranged in the chamber of Advocate General to discuss the

Page 40 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

issue where the Secretary of the commission, Joint Secretary
Shri V.N. Desai, Shri Deepak Shukla, a panel advocate of the
commission and the Registrar remained present. In the
meeting, the provisions of GAD circular dated 22­05­1997 and
subsequent judgment by the Division Bench in Dr. Komal
Katara case were discussed. The opinion of Advocate General
with reference to the judgment is considered while following
procedure at present. The details thereof were given. Three
MCAs of the Commission and one MCA of the GAD are
pending before the High Court. Detailed discussion about legal
aspects was held with Advocate Shri Deepak Shukla, a panel
advocate of the commission and the Advocate General that
considering the circumstances, whether the present procedure
be continued in accordance with the judgment in case of Dr.
Komal Katara or the procedure prescribed vide the judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court be implemented. After the discussion,
the Advocate General opined that the procedure be followed in
accordance with the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court. The
MCA in Review Petition of Dr. Katara being pending,
implementation of the procedure is not bound by the same. The
Hon'ble High Court can also justify it by placing on record the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court. As per the legal opinion of
24­12­2009, Komal Katara Judgment is only applicable to the
cases where situation similar to Komal Katara case has arisen.
In a case where situation not similar to Komal Katara case has
emerged, recruitment of women is to be decided considering

Page 41 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

instructions of 1997 of the GAD and judgments of the Supreme
Court in Mamta Bist case and other similar cases. Under such
circumstances, now the Commission is required to take the
decision about the matter after a review.

(12) Perusing the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Rajeshkumar Dariya V/S Rajasthan P.S.C.
Dated: 18/07/2007, it appears that, in the case of female
reservation, the merit list should be prepared according to the
total vacancies of concerned category at first, and if the number
of female candidates equivalent to the reserved posts of female
or more are included in this merit list, the posts of female
reservation are deemed to be filled up. But if the female
candidates equal to number of female reservation are not
available, they shall be considered from the merit list in the
following order for the selection of the number of such female
candidates and the male candidates to that extent shall be
decreased from the merit list. For example, 10 posts are to be
filled from unreserved category, out of which 3 posts are
reserved for female. If the passing criteria for unreserved
category is 40 marks, the combined list of male and female
candidates securing 40 marks or more is to be prepared first,
and if three or more females are included in it on merit, no
further consideration is to be made considering that 30 percent
female reservation is fulfilled as per rules. But if two female
candidates are included, one more female candidate is to be

Page 42 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

selected and for that, the female candidates from the merit list
are to be considered in the following order and the male
candidate at sr.No.10 in the merit list is to be excluded from
the selection list. This kind of consideration is to be adopted
for the candidates of scheduled cast / scheduled tribe / socially
and educationally backward / physically disabled. After
discussion of this fact, following can be considered in the result
which will be declared afterwards.

(a) Instead of prescribing the minimum passing marks / selection
criteria separately for the male and female candidates of
unreserved and reserved category, the minimum passing /
selection criteria for unreserved category (common minimum
passing / selection criteria for Male and female) and for the
reserved category (common minimum passing / selection
criteria for Male and female) may be prescribed.

(b) If the female candidates equal to the posts of reserved seats of
female or more are included in the merit list prepared on the
basis of minimum passing criteria, no relaxation standard
shall be fixed for the female candidates considering that the
provisions of 30 percent female reservation are complied.

(c) If the female candidates sufficiently equal to the posts of
female reservation are not available in the merit list prepared
on the basis of minimum marks, the shortfall of female
candidates shall be selected from the relaxed standard for
female candidates.

Page 43 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

(d) Considering the legal opinion submitted by the Advocate
General on 06/10/2001 in respect of what extent the minimum
standard is to be relaxed for filling up 30 percent posts of
female, the Commission has decided that, 10 percent of the
minimum marks prescribed for the candidates of
unreserved/reserved candidates shall be relaxed as the
standard in this regard. Such standard is found proper to be
followed in the result which will be declared hereinafter.
Purpose of the Commission to take such decision is to maintain
30% female reservation as well as efficiency / merit etc in
government service. Aforesaid relaxed standard should be
adopted only for shortfall of candidates in female reservation
seats and a separate waiting list of female candidates on the
basis of relaxed standard should not be maintained.

(Ch) As shown in (Gh) above, if sufficient female candidates are not
available for 30% after relaxing standard, such shortfall /
vacant seats shall be filled by male candidates as per their
merit number.

(Chh) Before preparing common merit list for recommendation to the
Government, joint list of all the candidates, category wise
separate common merit list for general candidates (male and
female), Scheduled Caste candidates (male and female),
Scheduled Tribe candidates (male and female), Socially and
Educationally Backward Candidates (male and female),

Page 44 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

physically handicapped candidates (male and female) shall be
prepared first.

(Jh) It would also occur sometimes that due to preparing the
merit list in aforesaid manner, number of candidates with
minimum or more marks would be more than total number of
aforesaid category. Under the circumstances, candidates equal
to number of posts should be kept in selection list and
remaining candidates should be included in waiting list and if
a candidate does not join after making recommendation and
proposal is received to call for a name from waiting list, in
such an event, if female candidate has not joined,
recommendation should be made from waiting list serially if
30% seats (meaning seats shown in advertisement) are filled
with female candidates in recommendation list and if 30%
seats are not filled with female candidates, female candidate
should be recommended from waiting list, which method is
being followed at present.

(Z) The decision dated 09­09­2005 taken by the Commission
(Circular No.:EXM­82­2000­Part­2­CNF) to call three times the
number of candidates to seats in preliminary test should be
continued.

For consideration and order of the Commission."

Page 45 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

POLICY DECISION DATED 25.10.2001

(translated version)

Through two notifications dated
09/04/97 of the General Administration Department of the
Government, it has been provided by the State Government
that 30 % seats shall be reserved in the concerned cadres for
the appointment of women in all the services. In this regard,
necessary note had been prepared and produced before the
Commission earlier for the implementation of the said order in
the case of direct recruitment and competitive examinations
conducted by the Commission. However, it appears that no
decision has been taken by the Commission in this regard.
Moreover, the respective file has also not been returned to the
office. In such circumstances, the copy of the said note has been
produced again to the Correspondence Department : 1 to 3 for
necessary action. It is requested that appropriate decision
should be taken after consideration in this regard.

Signature (Illegible)
(Chandravadan Kapadiya)
Secretary
Date - 31/07/2001.

As per the above mentioned notification of the Government as
well as the clarification dated 22/05/97, it is provided that, for

Page 46 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

30 % reservation for female candidates, after counting the
female candidates passed on merits, the shortfall female
candidates required for 30% reservation can be appointed on
the basis of reservation. All these provisions shall be followed
at the time of selection for the posts of all the direct
recruitments by the Commission.

Signature (Illegible)

3/8/2
Member, Mr. Rana Discussion shall be done
Signature (Illegible) 06/08/01

Member, Dr. Patel Signature (Illegible) 06/08/01

Member, Mr. Chavda Discussion shall be done in
Commission.
Signature (Illegible) 07/08/01
Chairman After discussing today, the
opinion of the Advocate
General shall be asked as
soon as possible.

Member, Mr. Rana Signature (Illegible) 24/09/01
Member, Dr. Patel Signature (Illegible) 24/09/01
Member, Mr. Chavda Signature (Illegible) 24/09/01
Chairman Signature (Illegible) 24/09/01

Page 47 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

Submitted with compliments.

2. Kindly see the letter dated 06­10­2001 of the Advocate
General received on 22­10­2001.

3. It has been provided in the notification dated 09­04­1997
of General Administrative Department to keep 30% posts
reserved for women in all the services and vacancies under the
State Government. It also clarifies the issues raised out of the
circular dated 22­05­1997. As the result of preliminary
examination for Gujarat Civil Services Class­I and II is to be
prepared, a letter was sent to the Advocated General of Gujarat
on 26­09­2001 seeking his opinion for more clarification in this
regard. His opinion has been received on 22­10­2001. The
details are as follows.

"As per the judgement of the Supreme Court, the
Commission may keep selection criteria for appointment of
women candidates lower than that of male candidates. This
criteria is applicable to all elimination tests and competitive
examinations. However, the Commission shall decide as to upto
what extent the selection criteria to be kept. This lower criteria
shall be fixed in the range of 5% to 15%."

As the result of preliminary examination for appointment to the
posts of Gujarat Civil Services, Class­I and II, conducted on
26­08­2001 is pending, kindly decide appropriately as to how
much lower the selection criteria for women candidates is to be
kept than that of male candidates in accordance with the

Page 48 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

opinion of the Advocate General.

4. For consideration and order of the Commission.
Sd/­ (Illegible)
Date: 22­10­2001
Secretary
As recommended in para­(8) of the opinion given by the
Advocate General, State of Gujarat, keeping selection criteria
for women candidates in the range of 5­10 percent in
comparison to male candidates for Gujarat Civil Services
(Preliminary) Examination, August 2001, procedure be carried
out so that 30% women may get selected at every stage as per
Rule­2 of Gujarat Civil Services (Reservation of Posts for
Women) Rules, 1997.

Sd/­ (Illegible)
Date: 23­10­2001

Member Shri Rana Sd/­(Illegible) 23­10­2001
Member Dr. Patel Sd/­(Illegible) 23­10­2001
Member Shri Chavda Sd/­(Illegible) 23­10­2001
Chairman

Discussion was held today in the commission.

While preparing result for various exams conducted by
the commission for recruitment through competitive exam and
direct recruitment, i.e­ Objective test(Elimination test), Written
test, Personal Interview and (Skill test) Stenography, the

Page 49 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

shortfall required on the posts reserved for women are to be
taken on the basis of reservation.

For this, 10% lower eligibility standard is decided for
female candidates than that of male candidates of respective
category. Even after doing so, if the posts reserved for women
remain vacant, then it is decided to fill these posts with male
candidates of the respective category.

Clarification
In personal interview, it is decided to set 10% lower
eligibility standard for female candidates than that of male
candidates for the posts at present. For example,

Eligibility standard Eligibility standard
for Men for Women

50 45

40 36

35 31

25 22

Member Shri Rana Sd/­ illegible
25­10­01
Member Dr. Patel Sd/­ illegible
25­10­01
Member Shri Chavda Sd/­ illegible
25­10­01

Chairman
Kindly keep copy."

Page 50 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

4.4 Mr. Shukla would also rely on the Gujarat Public Service

Commission Procedure Rules, 1962 which regulate its procedure

and function. Relying on clause (ii) of Sub­ Rule (ii) of Rule 2 of the

Procedure Rules, he would submit that after the receipt of the

applications the GPSC will determine as to who should be admitted

at the examination and fix the date and programmes of the

examination and make all arrangement for the conduct of the

examinations. In his submission, when no specific provision is made

in the Rules, it is within the domain of the Commission to formulate

a yardstick for qualifying the merit position.

4.5 Taking us to the Affidavit, Mr. Shukla explained the manner

and the method in which the result was furnished. He would submit

that the following male candidates had been selected against the

posts reserved for women for respective categories as a result of

unsuccessful women candidates who did not qualify on the relaxed

standard of 10% in the respective category viz­a­viz the male

candidates. The details of the male candidates, 21 in number who

were selected in place of female candidates are as under:

Page 51 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

CATEGORY NO. OF MALE CANDIDATES

GEN 8

SEBC 8

SC 01

ST 04

TOTAL 21

He would submit that this was because of non availability of

women candidates even after relaxing 10% of the qualifying of the

respective categories.

4.6 Taking us to the Affidavit­in­reply filed by the GPSC on

09.02.2015, particularly paras 6.3 to 6.6, Mr. Shukla would explain

that the candidates have been arranged in the order of merit on the

basis of aggregate marks finally awarded to each candidate in the

main examination (Written and Personal Interview) and explaining

the working of the results, he would submit that the Commission

firstly prepared the list in the order of merit in descending order, i.e.

the candidate with the highest total marks at Merit No. 1 and the

candidate securing lowest marks at the bottom. He would further

submit that for Unreserved/General category, there were 24

Page 52 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

vacancies for the post of ACF of which 8 had to be filled by female

candidates. Similarly, 60 vacancies were for the post of RFO of

which 18 had to be filled by women candidates of General category.

In all, 84 general posts were to be filled in of which 26 were reserved

for female candidates. He would submit that going down the list the

last candidate at Merit No. 78, who had secured 433 marks was the

yardstick worked out and 10% relaxation for female candidates on

that basis was counted as 389 for the purpose of yardstick of the

female candidates in unreserved category.

4.7 In other words, the GPSC went into each category and the last

male candidate of the said category was considered and 10%

qualifying standard was relaxed so as to consider the eligibility of a

female candidate for being appointed in the respective reserved

categories against female reservation. While working up such list,

only 30 women candidates were found qualifying and hence deficit of

21 posts were filled in by transferring such posts male candidates for

respective categories.

4.8 Mr. Shukla would submit that it is entirely within the domain

Page 53 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

of the GPSC to prescribe for qualifying standards and the findings of

the learned Single Judge that the GPSC had either no power or that

the power was utilised arbitrarily, was misconceived. He would

submit that the list was operated in accordance with the decision of

the Apex Court in the case of
Rajesh Kumar Daria
(supra) and in

accordance with the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of
Union

of India vs. Mamta Bisht
[(2010) 12 SCC 204].

4.9 A preliminary objection was raised by Mr. Shukla during the

course of his submissions that the original petitioners - candidates

who had taken part in the selection process knowing fully well the

procedure laid down therein could not question the same. In support

of his submission, he would rely on the following decisions:

(
i) Union of India vs. S. Vinodh Kumar
reported in

2007 (8) SCC 100 : AIR 2008 SC 5

(
ii) Amlan Jyoti Barooah vs. State of Assam and

Others
reported in 2009 (3) SCC 227

(iii) Sadananda Halo & Others vs. Momtaz Ali Sheikh

& Others reported in 2008 (4) SCC 619 &

Page 54 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

(iv) Ranjan Kumar etc. vs. State of Bihar and Others

reported in 2014 AIR SCW 2968.

4.10 With regard to the powers of the GPSC to judge the merits of

the candidates, Mr. Shukla invited the attention of the Court to the

decision in the case of
Andhra Pradesh Public Service

Commission vs. Balaji Badhavath and Others
[(2009) 5 SCC 1.

He would particularly invite the attention of the Court to paras 12 to

25 thereof to submit that it is for the Commission to judge the merit

of the candidates and unless the procedure adopted by it is held to be

arbitrary or against the principles of fair play, the Superior Courts

would not ordinarily interfere therewith. He would submit that no

one had a fundamental right to be appointed because the right

merely provides for a right to be considered.

4.11 In context of his submission explaining the concept of women

reservation and prescribing the standard of qualifying marks, Mr.

Shukla would rely on the decision dated 13.12.2007 in the case of

Dr. Mehta Rakshaben Kantilal vs. Gujarat Public Service

Commission and Another (Special Civil Application No.

Page 55 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

25773 of 2007). He would invite the attention of the Court to

relevant contentions raised by the parties therein, wherein the

petitioner had prayed to quash and set aside alleged norms fixed by

the GPSC being dehors the advertisement and the recruitment

rules. He would invite the attention of the court to para 16 of the

decision and submit that fixation of cut­off marks cannot be said to

be arbitrary. Specific attention was drawn to para 18 of the decision

wherein the court had observed that if there is a relaxation or a

provision of cut­off marks between reserved category candidates for

entry of female candidates it cannot be said to frustrate female

reservation. He would also invite the court's attention to para 23 of

the decision. In support of his submissions he also relied on the

following decisions:

(a) Asha M. Barasara v. Gujarat Public Service

Commission reported in 2008(3) GLR 2462 : 2008(2) GCD
(b) Prajapati Ishwarbhai Joitaram & 18 v. State of

Gujarat delivered by Gujarat High Court in LPA No.

1350 of 2012 in SCA No. 13495 of 2012

Page 56 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

(c) Nagori Ruksana Ahmedkhan v. State of Gujarat

delivered by Gujarat High Court in LPA No. 2474 of 2010

in SCA No. 10060 of 2000

(d) Hemlata R. Joshi v. State of Gujarat of Gujarat

High Court in SCA No. 5733 /2004

(e) Hemlata R. Joshi v. State of Gujarat of Gujarat

High Court delivered by Gujarat High Court in LPA No.

649 of 2005 in SCA No. 5733 /2004

(
f) Public Service Commission, Uttaranchal v. Mamta

Bisht and Others
reported in 2010(12) SCC 204

4.12 Reading extensively the decision in the case of Prajapati

Ishwarbhai Joitaram (supra), Mr. Shukla would submit that the

Division Bench of this Court held that even in reserved categories

while making appointments efficiency of administration cannot be

completely ignored and therefore a prescription of cut­off marks for

appointment even in reserved categories was held to be just and

proper. He would submit that the Division Bench also held that it is

well settled that women reservation is horizontal and in respect of

seats of women the merit will be at par with the male candidates

Page 57 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

and if requisite merit is not available conversion of posts in the

respective category cannot be said to be arbitrary. Under no

circumstances, should the GPSC be compelled to go down below the

cut­off marks because the same would compromise with efficiency.

Mr. Shukla in context of the decision of the Division Bench relied on

para 6.

4.13 In support of his submission that the Commission is within its

powers to provide for prescription of cut­off marks, an additional set

of judgements was tendered by him on 16.03.2021. The list of

judgements read as under:

(
a) Prof. A. Marx v. Government of Tamil Nadu

reported in 2013(O) GLHEL­SC­54739 : 2014(13) SCC 329

(
b) Lekhabahen Kanaiyalal Modi v. State of Gujarat

reported in 2015(O) AIJEL - HC - 232965 : 2015 JX (Guj)
(c) Artiben Manilal Makwana v. State of Gujarat

Page 58 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

delivered by Gujarat High Court in LPA Nos.1428 of

2015 & 19 of 2016 (Interim Order dated 19.12.2018)

(
d) Ira Harshadkumar Bhavsar v. State of Gujarat

delivered by Gujarat High Court in SCA No.8857/2013

dated 18.4.2017

(
e) Bhavneeta Rajeshkumar Darji v. State of Gujarat

reported in 2018(O) AIJEL­HC­239188 : 2018(2) GLH 350.

4.14 Extensively relying on the decision of this Court in the case of

Lekhaben Modi
(supra) wherein the Circulars of 09.04.1997 and

22.05.1997 were considered holding that unless it was found to be

arbitrary 10% relaxation in context of female reservation was held to

be valid, Mr. Shukla submitted that the learned Single Judge

committed an error in holding the prescription of such qualification

as being beyond the powers of the GPSC.

Relying on the decision in

the case of
Bhavneeta Rajeshkumar Darji
(supra), Mr. Shukla

would invite the attention of the Court to para 7 in support of his

submission.

Page 59 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

5. In the case before us, in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1109 of

2015, for the respondent - original petitioner - unsuccessful

candidate who has also filed LPA No. 1187 of 2015, Mr. Bhaskar

Tanna, learned Senior Advocate appeared. He drew the attention of

the Court to the Affidavit­in­reply of the GPSC and read the same in

context of the 'Convenience Note' filed by him in LPA No. 1187 of

2015. He would submit that the appellants of LPA No. 1187 of 2015

were general category candidates who had been deprived the benefit

of female reservation on account of erroneous implementation of

policy of reservation for women. He would submit that while

declaring the merit list of 25.09.2014, the GPSC had not followed

the 30% reservation for females as envisaged by the Apex Court in

the case of
Mamta Bisht
(supra).

5.1 Mr. Tanna would further submit that GPSC at the relevant

time was not even entitled to prescribe 10% relaxation in qualifying

marks for women and thereby transferring the shortfall to be

occupied by male candidates of the respective categories. As far as

the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the original petitioners, he would

Page 60 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

submit that he was aggrieved by the observation of the learned

Single Judge in para 57(f), which misinterpreted the concept of

horizontal and compartmentalized reservation taking it as a concept

and an argument which was not found favourable as taking away a

slice from the quota of vertical reservation.

5.2 Mr. Tanna would submit that when sufficient qualified female

candidates were available, steps should have been taken by the

GPSC to fill in the reserved post in each category with the available

female candidates and the contention of Mr. Shukla that the power

of the GPSC was backed by an opinion of the Advocate General

dated 06.10.2001 was misconceived. There was no power with the

Commission to prescribe such qualifying standard. Mr. Tanna in

support of his submission would rely on the leading case as he would

put it in the case of
Tamannaben Ashokbhai Desai vs. Shital

Amrutlal Nishar
rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1910

of 2019 dated 05.08.2020. He would submit that the decision of the

learned Single Judge (J.B. Pardiwala, J.)

in the case of
Lekhaben

Modi
(supra) was no longer a good law in view of the decision in the

case of
Tamannaben Desai
(supra) (authored by Honourable

Page 61 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

Justice J.B. Pardiwala himself with Honourable the Chief Justice

Vikram Nath) which in para 56 provided and explained the proper

and correct method of implementing horizontal recommendation for

women. He would submit that the manner and the method in which

the GPSC operated the merit list, was seriously flawed and the

learned Single Judge had committed no error in assessing such fault

as he did.

He would want the court to read extensively the manner

in which the learned Single Judge found the working of the female

reservation as being flawed in comparison to one
laid down in

Tamannaben Desai
(supra).
Mr. Tanna would submit that the

learned Single Judge has distinguished the decisions in the case of

Dr. Mehta Rakshaben (supra) and Prajapati Ishwarbhai

Joitaram (supra).

5.3 Mr. Tanna would further invite the attention of the Court to

the decision of the Apex Court in the case of
Saurav Yadav and

Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others
reported in

(2020) SCC OnLine 1034 and submit that the procedure so
laid

down by
the Gujarat High Court in
Tamannaben Desai
(supra)

has been approved and referred to in paras 33 and 36 of the decision.

Page 62 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

5.4 Mr. Tanna would extensively read para 56 of
Tamannaben

Desai
(supra) and elucidate the step wise implementation of women

reservation in each category. He would submit that the learned

Single Judge was right in his perception of holding that the Rules of

the games were changed and the judgements cited by Mr. Shukla

that once having participated in the selection process, the petitioners

ought not to have approached this court would not apply to the facts

of this case.

Mr. Tanna would also rely on the recent decision of the

Division Bench of this Court in the case of
Alpesh Surendrasinh

Rathod vs. State of Gujarat
in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1246

of 2019 dated 17.10.2020.

6. Mr. K.B. Pujara, learned Advocate has appeared in LPA No.

1110 of 2015. He would invite the court's attention to the

distribution of seats and submit that he was canvassing on behalf of

SEBC candidate female. 15 seats were reserved for women in the

SEBC category. He would submit that after holding OMR test,

Written Examination and Oral Tests and after final selection list

was published, the petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 2125 of

Page 63 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

2015 was placed at SEBC­F­15. He would invite the attention of the

Court to the operative portion of the learned Single Judge, para

57(k) and submit that he would support the impugned judgement of

the learned Single Judge.

6.1 Mr. Pujara would submit that the Rules, 1997 provided a

statutory requirement of 30% (now 33%) reservation for women

under the proviso to
Article 309
of the Constitution of India. He

would submit that though large number of eligible candidates were

available in each category, the GPSC selected much less number of

women than notified vacancies for them in the final selection list

dated 25.09.2014.

6.2 Mr. Pujara would submit that by not actually selecting the

sufficient number of women for the posts reserved for women as

notified in the advertisement, the GPSC failed to implement the

statutory policy of women reservation of the State Government.

GPSC committed illegality by preparing select list and final list on a

wrong premises by applying irrational and illogical formula of fixing

qualifying marks on the basis of the marks obtained by the "last

Page 64 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

male candidate" of the respective category and then granting 10%

relaxation for selecting women candidate on the reserved quota. In

the submission of Mr. Pujara, such formula had no legal sanctity as

it was not even contemplated by the statutory rules. The GPSC

being a creature of the Constitution under the
Article 320
it must

scrupulously follow the statutory rules. He would invite the

attention of the Court to para 12.2 of the judgement of the learned

Single Judge.
In support of his submissions, Mr. Pujara would rely

on the decision in the case of
Rajesh Kumar Daria vs. Rajasthan

Public Service Commission
(supra) wherein the Apex Court has

explained the concept of women reservation and how the same is to

be implemented.

He would also rely on the decision of the Apex

Court in the case of
State of Punjab vs. Manjit Singh
[(2003) 11

SCC 559]. He would invite the attention of the Court to para 9

thereof to submit that where no special qualification or any

prescribed standard of efficiency over and above the eligibility

criteria is provided by the Rules, it would not be for the Commission

to impose any extra qualification.

6.3 Mr. Pujara would also invite the attention of the Court to the

Page 65 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

decision in the case of
Inder Parkash Gupta vs. State of Jammu

and Kashmir
[(2004) 6 SCC 786]. He would submit relying on

para 28 of the decision that the Commission must scrupulously

follow the Proviso to the Rules under
Article 309
and it cannot fix

any "cut­off marks" not contemplated under the statutory rules.

6.4 Mr. Pujara would rely on the decision in the case of
P.V.

Indiresan (2) vs. Union of India
[2011 (8) SCC 441] which

explains the concept of "cut­off marks".

He further relied on the

decision in the case of
Government of Andhra Pradesh vs. P.B

Vijayakumar
[(1995) 4 SCC 520] which provides the spirit of

reservation inasmuch as the reservation in benefit of a person who is

required not to compete in equal terms with the open category, their

selection and appointment to the reserved post is independently on

their inter­se merit and not as compared with the merits of the

candidates in the open category. The very purpose of reservation

according to Mr. Pujara is to protect the weak against the

competition of the open category.

7. Mr. Yatin Oza, learned Counsel with Ms. Srushti Thula,

Page 66 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

learned advocate has also appeared for the respondents in LPA Nos.

1108 of 2015 - original petitioners and made the submissions in

support of the decision of the learned Single Judge. Mr. Oza would

submit that had the qualification of 10% not been so prescribed post

merit list, the original petitioners would have been in the female

category in the deficit 21 seats that were transferred to the male

candidates which were completely against and prejudicial to the

women's right and dignity. The fixing of qualifying standards after

the announcement of the results, in his submission, has been rightly

upset by the learned Single Judge. He would submit that the

Commission is constituted as a Constitutional Body under
Article
of the Constitution of India and must faithfully follow the Rules

and it must select the candidates in accordance with the

Examination Rules. Mr. Oza has relied on the decisions which were

cited by Mr. K.B. Pujara during the course of his arguments and

therefore he submitted that he would not repeat and reiterate those

citations but would adopt the arguments on the judgements cited by

Mr. Pujara during part arguments made by him in the earlier course

of hearing in this court.

Page 67 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

8. We have also heard Mr. Prabhakar Upadhyay, learned

Advocate who appears for the respondent in LPA No. 1109 of 2015.

He would submit that he was the respondent no. 7 in LPA No. 1109

of 2015 and respondent no. 6 in LPA No. 1187 of 2015. He would

submit that the concerned respondent whom he represents was

issued an order of appointment on 28.01.2016, pursuant to an order

passed by this court in Civil Application No. 11408 of 2015 on

14.10.2015. He was sent for training on 01.03.2016. The

subsequent decision and the modification of the list based on the

decision of the Apex Court in the case of
Ramesh Ram
(supra)

according to Mr. Upadhyaya is flawed.

He would submit that the

learned Single Judge has rightly held that the judgment in the case

of
Ramesh Ram
(supra) is rules specific and would not apply to the

rules as they exist in the State of Gujarat.

9. Mr. Sandeep Limbani, learned Advocate has appeared and

supported the submissions of the learned Counsel for the GPSC. Ms.

Dimple Thakkar, learned Advocate who appears for one Mr. Keyur

Patel submitted that the applicant of Civil Application No. 2 of 2016

(OLD No. 3733 of 2016) in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1110 of 2015

Page 68 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

for joining party is claiming his right as he has scored 426 marks

and is above the cut­off marks in the new revised list. She submitted

that the original petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 2125 of

2014 was claiming a right as per the old list of 25.09.2014.

According to her, the applicant can be considered in the 21 left out

seats if the GPSC would succeed in the appeals.

9.1 Mr. Gautam Joshi, learned Counsel appears for the Civil

Applicant of Civil Application No. 1 of 2016 (Old No. 13096 of 2016).

He has submitted that the applicant is a female candidate of general

category and has scored 346 marks, above the cut off marks for

SEBC (Female) and that she has been listed at Sr. No. 150 in the list

dated 25.09.2014 and at Sr. No. 151 in the revised new list. He

further submitted that the applicant of Civil Application No. 13096

of 2016 is similarly situated as the applicants in Civil Applications

in which this Court has passed order dated 14.10.2015 that is above

cut­off marks in SEBC category for whom there is no question of

further relaxation of marks. The applicant is also entitled to the

appointment like the candidates appointed who have scored more

than the cut­off marks of SEBC.

Page 69 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

10. Mr. Kanva Antani, learned AGP has appeared for the State.

He would draw the attention of the Court to the provisions of

Articles 309
and
of the Constitution of India and submit that

under
Article 309
of the Constitution it is for the State to legislate

for making Rules for the purposes of recruitment whereas for the

purposes of conducting examination it is within the domain of the

Public Service Commission under
Article 320
of the Constitution of

India. The concept of recruitment envisages 2 streams (i) Selection

and (ii) Appointment. Selection is undertaken by the Public Service

Commission whereas appointment is made by the State. Mr. Antani

would invite the attention of the Court to the Examination Rules

and submit that it is within the powers of the Commission to

formulate a policy and the decision of the Commission shall be final.

ANALYSIS

11. As reproduced hereinabove, the major bone of contention that

this Court in these Appeals is called upon to decide is whether the

method, procedure and the basis followed and adopted by the GPSC

Page 70 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

for determining the qualifying standards (described by the GPSC as

"cut­off marks") and by adopting such criteria which was not

declared and informed to the candidates amounted to changing the

rules of the game. The second consequential issue that, therefore,

deserves consideration is whether it was open for the GPSC to

transfer the quota reserved for female candidates to male

candidates. The question whether transfer of quota of candidates

possessing special qualification is an issue which will be dealt with

in course of a separate LPA which is still pending consideration.

12. Before we embark on this journey of taking a decision on the

issue, it will be in the fitness of things to have a bird's eye view of

the relevant rules of recruitment that govern the recruitment in

question. Rules governing the recruitment of ACF are Assistant

Conservator of Forests in Gujarat Forest Service, Class II

Recruitment Rules, 2007 ( for short 'Rules of 2007'). Those

rules provide for recruitment to the service either by way of

promotion and by direct selection on the basis of a result of a

competitive examination held for such purpose. Rule 2 of the Rules

of 2007 reads as under:

Page 71 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

"2. Appointment to the post of Assistant Conservator of
Forests, Class II, shall be made either,

a) by promotion of a person of proved merit and efficiency
from amongst the persons who

i) have worked for not less than five years in the
cadre of Range Forest Officer, Class­II;

ii) have passed the prescribed departmental
examination; and

iii) have passed the qualifying examination for
computer knowledge as may be prescribed by the
Government in accordance with the provision of the
Gujarat Civil Services Classification and
Recruitment (General) Rules, 1967:

Provided that where the appointing authority is
satisfied that a person having the experience
specified in clause(i) is not available for promotion
and that it is necessary in the public interest to fill
up a post by promotion even of a person having
experience for a lesser period, it may, for reasons to
be recorded in writing, promote such person who
possesses experience of a period of not less than two
third of the period prescribed in clause(i).

b) by direct selection on the basis of the result of the
competitive examination held for the purpose."

Page 72 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

12.1 Amendments have been made to the Rules of 2007 in the years

2008 and 2009 which may not be relevant for the present

controversy. For the purpose of rules governing recruitment of RFO,

the rules are known as Range Forest Officer Class II

Recruitment Rules, 2008. The appointments are made either by

promotion of a person through proved merit and efficiency or by

direct selection of a person holding prescribed qualifications. The

examinations for the purposes of recruitment to these posts that of

ACF and RFO is governed by the Examination Rules, as stated in

the earlier part of the judgement known as The Assistant

Conservator of Forest, Class II/ Range Forest Officer

Competitive Examination Rules, 2008. The Rules provide as

under:

"2. Definitions:­ In these rules, unless the context otherwise

requires.­

(a)"Commission" means the Gujarat Public Service
Commission;

(b)"Examination" means the Combined Competitive
Examination for recruitment to the post of Assistant
Conservator of Forest / Range Forest Officer and includes

Page 73 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

the Preliminary Examination, Main Examination and an
interview test referred to in rule 4;

(c) xxx xxxx xxxx

(d) "Prescribed" means prescribed by the regulations made
by the Commission;"

XXX XXX XXX

3. Holding of Examination.­ (1) The Commission shall

hold a combined competitive examination for selection of
candidate on receiving of the requisition from the
Government, for the aforesaid post. The dates and the
place of the examination shall be decided by the
Commission.

4. Nature of Examination.­ (1) The examination shall be

in two successive stages namely.­

(i) Preliminary Examination (Objective type) for selection of
Candidates for Main Examination,

(ii)Main Examination (Written and Interview Test) for final
selection of candidate.

XXX XXX XXX

9. Order of Preference.­ (1) The names of the candidates shall be

Page 74 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

arranged by the commission in the order of merit on the basis
of aggregate marks finally awarded to each candidate in the
main examination (written and Interview test) and in that
order, the commission shall recommend the qualified
candidates for appointment to the extent of the number of
vacancies to be filled in;

Provided that where the vacancies reserved for the candidates
belonging to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes or Socially
and Educationally Backward Classes cannot be filled up on the
basis of qualifying aggregate marks fixed for general category,
the Commission may relax the standard of aggregate marks to
make up for the deficiency in the reserved posts;

10.Conditions for Eligibility.­ (1) A Candidate shall not be

qualified for admission to the Examination unless he is,­

(a) a citizen of India, or

(b) a subject of Nepal, or

(c) a subject of Bhutan, or

(d) a person of Indian origin who has migrated from Pakistan,
Myanmar, Sri Lanka, East African Countries of kenya,
Uganda, the United Republic of Tanzania, Zambia,
Malawi, Zaire, Ethopia and Vietnam, with the intention of
permanently settling in India;

(2) A candidate who is required to produce a Certificate of
eligibility, may be allowed to appear in the examination or

Page 75 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

interview conducted by the Commission and he may also be
appionted provisionally subject to the production of eligibility
certificate.

XXX XXX XXX

17.Commission's decision final.­ (a) No candidate shall be

allowed to appear at the Main Examination unless the
Commission is satisfied that candidate is eligible in all respect
and has complied with all the requirements including the
payment of requisite fees.

(b) The decision of the Commission as to the eligibility of a
candidate for admission to the main examination shall be final
and the candidate who has not been permitted to appear in any
stage of the examination by the commission shall not be
allowed to appear at remaining stage of the examination.

XXX XXX XXX

19.Appearance to Main Examination.­ (a) The candidates

who have obtained minimum qualifying marks as may be fixed
by the Commission in the Preliminary Examination shall be
allowed to appear in the Main Examination subject to
satisfying the eligibility criteria.

(b) The candidates who have obtained minimum qualifying

marks as may be fixed by the Commission in the Main

Page 76 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

Examination (Written) shall be called for interview test.
Provided that candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes,
Scheduled Tribes or Socially and Economically Backward
Class may be, allowed to appear in the Main Examination
(Written test) or, as the case may be called for interview test by
relaxing the standard in the Preliminary Examination or, as
the case may be, in the Main Examination (Written) if the
Commission is of the opinion that sufficient number of
candidates from these communities are not likely to be
available for the Main Examination (written) or, as the case
may be, for interview test on the basis of the qualifying
standard fixed for general category in order to fill up the
vacancies reserved for such categories."

12.2 From the reading of the aforesaid examination rules, 2008,

what is evident is that the examinations for the purposes of

recruitment to these posts is to be held by the GPSC. It is a

combined competitive examination for recruitment to the post. The

examination is in two successive stages namely (i) preliminary

(objective type) for selection of candidates for main examination (ii)

Main examination (written and interview test) for final selection of a

candidate. Rule 9 indicates that the name of the candidates have to

be arranged by the Commission in the order of merit on the basis of

aggregate marks finally awarded to each candidate in the main

Page 77 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

examination and in that order the Commission shall recommend

the qualified candidate for appointment to the extent of the number

of vacancies to be filled in. The proviso indicates that where there

are vacancies reserved for candidates belonging to SC, ST or SEBC

and if such vacancies cannot be filled up on the basis of the

qualifying aggregate marks fixed for the general category, the

Commission may relax the standard of aggregate marks to make

up for the deficiency in the reserved posts. Rule 19 indicates

that the candidates who have obtained minimum qualifying marks,

as may be fixed by the Commission in the preliminary examination,

shall be permitted to appear in the main examination subject to

satisfying the eligibility criteria. Clause (b) of rule 19 provides that

the candidates who obtain minimum qualifying marks as may be

fixed by the Commission in the main (written) exam shall be called

for the interview test. The proviso indicates that the candidates

belonging to reserved categories may be allowed to appear in the

main examination or as the case may be called for the interview by

relaxing the standard if sufficient number of candidates of these

communities are not likely to be available for main examination or

as the case may be for the interview test on the basis of qualifying

Page 78 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

standard fixed for general categories in order to fill up the vacancies

for such categories.

13. For the sake of brevity, though it may amount to burdening

the record, we cannot help but reproduce the reasoning of the

learned Single Judge on the basis of the affidavit­in­reply of the

GPSC to show how they have worked out reservation in context of

qualifying marks of 10% reservation.

"18.2 On this count, it is pertinent that for the purpose of
determining the qualifying standard the respondent GPSC
first picked­up the General / Unreserved Category and took
into account total number of vacancies in that category.
Thereafter the respondent GPSC started from the candidate at
the top in the common merit list (i.e. the candidate with highest
marks) and, while descending, it started identifying only male
candidates belonging to the said / particular category and

proceeded in descending order by taking into account

marks of only male candidates in that particular

category (i.e. excluding all female candidates/marks

obtained by female candidates in that category) and

continued to descend in similar manner until it reached the
male candidate who, depending on the number of notified
vacancies in the particular category, would be the last male

Page 79 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

candidate required to fill­up the vacancies in that particular

category. The marks secured by such last male candidate

of that particular category are treated and adopted and

applied by GPSC as the qualifying marks/standard

(what is described by GPSC as cut­off marks) for the

respective category. The procedure and method followed by

GPSC is explained by it in paragraphs No.6.2 to 6.4 of its
affidavit dated 23.2.2015 filed in SCA No.14849 of 2014 and it
is further explained in para No.2 of its additional affidavit
dated 24.2.2015.

18.3 Besides this even in the notification dated 25.9.2014
GPSC itself has admitted and stated that: The candidates at
Rank No...... ST being female candidates have been selected
after relaxing the minimum qualifying standard prescribed for

male candidates of their respective categories. (Emphasis

supplied)

18.4 From the details mentioned in said affidavits it has
emerged that for combined (i.e. ACF + RFO) 84 position of
unreserved / general category, 26 position are reserved (@ 30%
of total number of notified vacancy for the said category) for
female candidates and for selecting female candidates for said
position, the marks secured by the male candidate in general
category whose name is listed at Sr.No.78 in the general /
common merit list is treated as the marks of last candidate in

Page 80 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

general / unreserved category (though only 58 position /
vacancies are to filled­up) and the marks secured by the said
male candidate at Sr.No.78 is recognized as minimum
qualifying marks/standard for the female candidates in
general / unreserved category on the premise that the said
candidate at Sr.No.78 is last male candidate to enter the
selection list in genera/unreserved category and the said
marks are then adopted and applied as benchmark for
selection of female candidates and for complying the reserved
quota. In response to the query, the learned counsel for GPSC
submitted and clarified that the standard/basis which came to
be fixed, settled and adopted in above mentioned manner (as
qualifying marks/standard) is treated as yardstick and
benchmark for all purposes including the process and purpose
of filling­up the reserved quota for women in other three
categories as well and for the candidates seeking selection in
the quota reserved for persons holding special qualification.

18.5 It is relevant to mention that the stage of finalizing
selection list and declaring successful candidates was reached
after crossing three stages of screening. It is also relevant to
note that the respondent GPSC also did not adopt the marks
secured by a candidate in particular category regardless or
irrespective of the fact that such last candidate is male
candidate or female candidate but the respondent GPSC
consciously started the process by picking up the marks secured

Page 81 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

only by male candidates in respective categories and proceeded
going downwards while taking into account the marks secured
by only male candidates and it consciously opted for and
adopted marks secured by such last male candidate as the
qualifying standard."

13.1 The working of reservation as demonstrated by the learned

Single Judge in para 18.2 which is reiterated above is at complete

variance of working of reservation in female category as held in the

case of
Tamannaben Desai
(supra) so confirmed by the Apex Court

in the case of
Saurav Yadav
(supra).

Para 56 of the decision in the

case of
Tamannaben Desai
(supra) which explains proper and

correct method of implementing horizontal reservation for women

reads as under:

"56. For the future guidance of the State Government, we
would like to explain the proper and correct method of
implementing horizontal reservation for women in a
more lucid manner.

"PROPER AND CORRECT METHOD OF

IMPLEMETING HORIZONTAL RESERVATION

FOR WOMEN.

No. of posts available for recruitment. ..... 100

Social Reservation quota (50%)

Page 82 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

Open Competition (OC) ... 51

Scheduled Caste (SC ) ... 12

Scheduled Tribe (ST) ... 17

Socially and Educationally

Backward Classes (SEBC) ... 20

Horizontal Reservation for Women (33% in each of

the above categories)

OC ... 17

SC ... 04

ST ... 06

SEBC ... 07

Step 1: Draw up a list of at least 100 candidates

(usually a list of more than 100 candidates is

prepared so that there is no shortfall of appointees

when some candidates don't join after offer)

qualified to be selected in the order of merit. This

list will contain the candidates belonging to all

the aforesaid categories.

Step 2: From the aforesaid Step 1 List, draw up a list of

the first 51 candidates to fill up the OC quota (51) on the
basis of merit. This list of 51 candidates may include the
candidates belonging to SC, ST and SEBC.

Step 3: Do a check for horizontal reservation in OC quota.

In the Step 2 List of OC category, if there are 17 women

Page 83 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

(category does not matter), women's quota of 33% is
fulfilled. Nothing more is to be done. If there is a
shortfall of women (say, only 10 women are available in

the Step 2 List of OC category), 7 more women have to

be added. The way to do this is to, first, delete the last 7

male candidates of the Step 2 List. Thereafter, go down

the Step 1 List after item no. 51, and pick the first 7

women (category does not matter). As soon as 7 such
women from Step 1 List are found, they are to be brought

up and added to the Step 2 List to make up for the

shortfall of 7 women. Now, the 33% quota for OC women

is fulfilled. List of OC category is to be locked. Step 2

List list becomes final.

Step 4: Move over to Scs. From the Step 1 List, after item

no. 51, draw up a list of 12 SC candidates (male or
female). These 12 would also include all male SC

candidates who got deleted from the Step 2 List to make

up for the shortfall of women.

Step 5: Do a check for horizontal reservation in the Step 4

List of Scs. If there are 4 SC women, the quota of 33% is

complete. Nothing more is to be done. If there is a
shortfall of SC women (say, only 2 women are available),
2 more women have to be added. The way to do this is to,

first, delete the last 2 male SC candidates of the Step 4

List and then to go down the Step 1 List after item no.

51, and pick the first 2 SC women. As soon as 2 such SC

Page 84 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

women in Step 1 List are found, they are to be brought

up and added to the Step 4 List of Scs to make up for

the shortfall of SC women. Now, the 33% quota for SC

women is fulfilled. List of Scs is to be locked. Step 4 List

becomes final. If 2 SC women cannot be found till the

last number in the Step 1 List, these 2 vacancies are to

be filled up by SC men. If in case, SC men are also
wanting, the social reservation quota of SC is to be
carried forward to the next recruitment unless there is a
rule which permits conversion of SC quota to OC.
Step 6: Repeat steps 4 and 5 for preparing list of Sts.
Step 7 Repeat steps 4 and 5 for preparing list of SEBCs."

13.2 Even the Apex Court in the case of
Saurav Yadav
(supra)

approved the decision in the case of
Tamannaben Desai
(supra).

Para 36 of the decision in the case of
Saurav Yadav
(supra) reads

as under:

"36. Finally, we must say that the steps indicated by the High
Court of Gujarat in para 56 of its judgment in Tamannaben
Ashokbhai Desai29 contemplate the correct and appropriate
procedure for considering and giving effect to both vertical and
horizontal reservations. The illustration given by us deals with
only one possible dimension. There could be multiple such
possibilities. Even going by the present illustration, the first
female candidate allocated in the vertical column for

Page 85 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

Scheduled Tribes may have secured higher position than the
candidate at Serial No.64. In that event said candidate must
be shifted from the category of Scheduled Tribes to Open /
General category causing a resultant vacancy in the vertical
column of Scheduled Tribes. Such vacancy must then enure to
the benefit of the candidate in the Waiting List for Scheduled
Tribes - Female. The steps indicated by Gujarat High Court
will take care of every such possibility. It is true that the
exercise of laying down a procedure must necessarily be left to
the concerned authorities but we may observe that one set out
in said judgment will certainly satisfy all claims and will not
lead to any incongruity as highlighted by us in the preceding
paragraphs."

14. What is evident from reading the Examination Rules of 2008 is

that, while preparing the merit list and recommending the name of

the qualified candidates for appointment, the Commission has to

arrange the names in the order of merit on the basis of aggregate

marks finally awarded to each candidate in the main Written

Examination and Interview Test. Rule 19 of the Examination Rules

envisages the discretion of the Commission to prescribe qualifying

standards. The minimum qualifying standards have to be fixed by

Page 86 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

the Commission in the preliminary examination prior to the main

examination and then while calling for the interview on the basis of

the main examination. On facts, it has been found on reading the

result dated 25.09.2014 that the Commission has introduced 10%

qualifying standards after preparing the Common Merit List for

purposes of working out female reservation based on the aggregate

marks of "last male candidate" in each category. The learned Single

Judge has specifically held in para 25 of the order that he is not

going into the question whether the Commission had power or not

what was observed is that what had been done was that the power

had been used without nexus and it was not sustained about the

manner in which the process was held. Para 25 at the cost of

repetition is quoted hereunder:

"25. For the foregoing reasons and in light of the facts, the
impugned method and procedure followed by GPSC and the
basis adopted by GPSC for fixing / determining the qualifying
standard as well as the qualifying marks/standard
determined and settled and adopted by GPSC are not
sustainable and deserve to be set aside and are consequently set
aside and as corollary all subsequent and consequential
decisions and actions by GPSC which are taken in pursuance
of and on the basis of such qualifying standard (decided in

Page 87 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

impugned method) fall and stand vitiated. At this stage, it is

necessary to further clarify that the action of

determining qualifying marks / standard and/or the

action of allowing relaxation therein are, essentially,

not sustained on account of the manner in which the

said process is carried out and the basis which GPSC

adopted and not for want of power. The action of

allowing relaxation is not sustained also because it is

tainted with vice of discrimination and the error of not

applying relevant factors and not for want of power.

[Emphasis Supplied]

15. Referring to the file notings produced by Mr. Shukla and read

before us in context of the opinion of the Advocate General dated

06.10.2001 quoted above, what is evident is that female reservation

is envisaged under the statutory rules, then in force by virtue of the

Notification of 09.04.1997. Even subsequent amendment of the rules

on 14.06.2012 would indicate that the explanation to the rules are in

the spirit of the judgement of this court in the case of
Rajesh

Kumar Daria
(supra). The reservation of posts for women has to be

done in consonance with the manner and method as envisaged under

the Notification dated 14.06.2012. Rule 3, the amended rule of that

Page 88 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

notification is reproduced hereunder:

"3. Manner of applying reservation of posts for

women

(1) The reservation of posts for women shall be
horizontal and compartmentalized and women selected
on merit within the vertical reservation quota in any
category mentioned in clause (a) to (d) of rule 2 shall be
counted against the horizontal reservation for women
within that category.

Explanation:

(i) Horizontal and compartmentalized reservation
means respective quota of posts reserved in favour of
women under Clause (3) of
article 15
of the Constitution
of India made in public services and posts in connection
with the affairs of the state that interlocks with the
vertical reservation.

(ii) Vertical reservation means reservation in favour of
Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other
Backward Classes under clause (4) of
article 16
of the
Constitution of India.

(2) The reservation of posts for women mentioned in
rule 2 shall be applied ­

(i) by first filling up the quota of the categories

Page 89 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

mentioned in clause (a) to (d) of rule 2 in order of merit;
and then

(ii) finding out the number of candidates among them
who belong to the respective reservation category and if
the number of candidates in such lists is equal to or more
than the number of special reservation quota of women,
then it shall not be necessary for further selection

towards the reservation quota of women. Only if there

is any shortfall of the women candidates in any

such category, the requisite number of women

belonging to such category shall have to be taken

by deleting the corresponding number of

candidates from the bottom of the list relating to

such category."

16. Reading of the aforesaid provision makes it abundantly clear

that if there is a shortfall of women candidates, the requisite number

of women shall have to be taken by deleting the corresponding

number of candidates from the bottom of the list relating to such

categories. The working of Commission in preparing the merit list of

25.09.2014 is in direct contravention of this provision. By

introducing the so called policy decision of 10% relaxation viz­a­viz

the last male candidate in each category, the said policy decision has

worked in direct conflict of the Reservation Rule under
Article 309
of

Page 90 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

the Constitution of India namely the Women Reservation Rules.

Consequentially, the action of transferring the deficit posts filled in -

21 in number by male candidates, therefore, in our opinion is not

sustainable and has rightly been set aside by learned Single Judge.

We concur with the said view.

17. The Circular dated 22.05.1997 envisages a position of filling in

a post of a female reserved category candidate by a male only in the

event a female candidate is not available.
In the facts of the present

case, what has been found by the learned Single Judge and which

has been so demonstrated by the pleadings on record, especially the

affidavit­in­reply of the GPSC is that the merit list has been so

operated contrary to the manner in which it is explained in the case

of
Tamannaben Desai
(supra).

18. As far as the decision cited by Mr. Shukla in the case of Dr.

Mehta Rakshaben (supra), reproduction of relevant para of the

decision in the case of Dr. Mehta Rakshaben (supra) shall be

pertinent. Para 18 of the said decision is reproduced hereinbelow:

Page 91 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

"18. The reservation of female candidates in open category

cannot be equated with the reservation made for SC­ST or

OBC in any recruitment. The reservation of female
candidates is reservation within the reservation as well as

reservation for open category. Therefore, when the

reservation is there in the open category, in normal

circumstances, it is also open to the recruitment authority to

fix up the same merit, may be between male candidates

or female candidates and between equal merits,

priority may be given to the female candidates for

offering appointment or for inclusion in the select list.

However, if a reasonable relaxation is given for considering

more number of female candidates for entering the zone of

consideration, the same also cannot be said as arbitrary
or unreasonable. In the present case, it appears that for the
male candidates GPSC has provided cut­off mark in open

category at 152, whereas for female candidates, such
standard of cut­off mark is lowered down and is fixed at
134, which has resulted into inclusion of about seven
more female candidates in the zone of consideration for
interview. Therefore, when the attempt is made for permitting

entry of more female candidates in comparison to the posts

available for female candidates, the action cannot be said as

frustrating or contrary to the policy for reservation made for

female candidates. Further, it is an admitted position that
none of the petitioners, not called for interview, has secured

134 or more marks at the elimination test. Therefore, the cut­

Page 92 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

off mark is relaxed for female candidates to enter the zone of

consideration for interview. "

18.1 In the facts of the said case, the court found that when an

attempt is made for permitting entry of more female candidates in

comparison to the posts available for female candidates, the action

cannot be said to be frustrating or contrary to the policy of

reservation made for female candidates. In other words, the policy

was approved as it worked in favour of female reservation whereas

in the facts of the present case, the learned Single Judge found that

it worked in contravention or constriction of the policy of reservation

and therefore even the learned Single Judge held and rightly so that

the decision in the case of Dr. Mehta Raksha (supra) would not be

applicable to the facts of the present case.

18.2 Even in the decision in the case of Prajapati Ishawarbhai

Joitaram (supra), the learned Single Judge rightly held that the

decision would not be applicable to the facts of the case. The

question there was also in relation to horizontal reservation but was

in context of providing for qualifying standards for entering the zone

for the purposes of interview and not after the entire exercise based

Page 93 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

for filtering on the basis of the examination, in the context of the

present rules, especially Rules 9 and 19, was over. The judgment,

therefore, would not be applicable. Paragraphs no. 4 to 6 of the

decision in the case of Prajapati Ishwarbhai Joitaram (supra)

read as under:

"4. However, the principal contention raised on behalf of the
appellants is that the cut­off marks for the purpose of inclusion in the
select list or waiting list should have been fixed by the respondents at
the time when the written examinations are held and it is not open to
the respondents to fix the cut­off marks at the later stage. It was also
submitted that even if the cut­off marks are fixed by the respondents
for the respective category of the candidates in the case of horizontal
reservation for Ex­Servicemen, in order to accommodate all Ex­
Servicemen upto the post advertised, it is required for the
respondents to go below the cut­off marks and offer employment for
the purpose of selection. The learned counsel in support of his
submission, has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case
of
Rajesh Kumar Daria Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission

reported at (2007) 8 SCC 785 for explaining the method and manner
of applying the horizontal reservation and the selection of the
candidates by application of horizontal reservation.

5. Whereas, on behalf of the respondents, it has been submitted
that initially the cut­off marks were not prescribed for the simple

Page 94 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

reason that it would be unknown as to how many candidates may
pass the written examination. It is only after the written examination
is conducted, if the interview is to be taken, normally the number of
candidates who may be called for interview, may be three times the
number of post advertised and therefore, the cut­off mark is to be
treated as that of the person who is last in such list for the purpose of
interview. Whereas in case of posts wherein interview is not provided
and the selection is to be made on the basis of the performance at the
written test, keeping in view the number of vacancies and the
available candidates, the cut­off mark is being provided. It was
submitted that so far as the appellants herein are concerned, who are
in the category of Ex­Servicemen, for which there is reservation of
10% in horizontal manner, initially, there was no relaxation
provided. However, subsequently, as the Division Bench of this Court
vide order dated 19.12.2012, passed in the present appeal, observed
for consideration on the aspect of relaxation, the Recruitment Board
has considered the same and relaxation has been granted to the
extent of 5% so far as Ex­Servicemen are concerned in comparison to
the cut­off marks of the candidates of the respective category, be it
General, SC, ST or SEBC, as the case may be. It was submitted that
for the purpose of inclusion of the name of any candidate who is
falling in the horizontal reservation, such candidate has to meet with
the criteria of cut­off marks provided for the respective category
subject to relaxation for Ex­Servicemen and if the candidate is to be
considered scoring less than the cut­off marks, it would adversely
affect the merits of the selection and ultimately efficiency of the

Page 95 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

candidate concerned and such would adversely affect the
administration. It was submitted that the facts and figures which are
given by way of the affidavit­in­reply in the present LPA makes it
clear that all care has been taken by the respondents to see that all
candidates of the reserved category are included in the list, but
subject to the requirement that one has scored marks above the cut­off
marks provided for such category with the relaxation of 5% for Ex­
Servicemen which is in the present case.

6. The first aspect of providing cut­off marks shows that the
recruitment process is governed by the Police Sub­Inspector, Class III
Level Cadres Posts (Combines Competitive Examination for Director
Recruitment) Rules, 2011, ( Recruitment Rules for short) copy
whereof is produced as annexure with the affidavit­in­reply dated
05.11.2012 filed by Shri Ashish Bhatia, Chairman of Recruitment
Board. Therefore, so far as the recruitment to the post of Police
Inspector is concerned, it would be governed by the aforesaid
Recruitment Rules. Rule 4(2)(c) of the Recruitment Rules reads as
under:

"The candidates who qualify in the written examination shall
be called for an interview. The number of candidates called for
interview shall ordinarily be three times the number of
requisioned."

Therefore, if the number of candidates to be called for interview by
express language of the Recruitment Rules should be equivalent to
three times the number of post advertised. Only those candidates who

Page 96 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

stand on merit upto three times the number of vacancies will be
required to be called for interview and under these circumstances, the
last candidate in the list who secured particular marks at the written
test could be termed as qualifying marks/cut­off marks of the
candidates for the post of Police Inspector. Therefore, if the
respondents have fixed the qualifying marks accordingly keeping in
view the said aspects, it cannot be said that there is no power or
authority with the recruiting board to provide for qualifying marks.
It is hardly required to be stated that fixation of qualifying marks for
entering into the select list and/or waiting list is essentially the
domain of recruiting agency or the authority conducting the
examination. For example, if the number of posts are 50 and the
candidates appearing at the written test are 500 and about 300
candidates have passed the written test, that does not mean that all
the 300 candidates would be eligible for the purpose of interview. It is
open to the recruiting agency or the authority conducting the
examination to fix the cut­off marks which is popularly known as
qualifying marks for the purpose of entering in the zone of
consideration for the purpose of interview. In the present case, it is
three times the number of posts advertised. Therefore, it is only after
the result of the written test, the recruiting agency may be in a
position to know that how many candidates are to be interviewed and
the qualifying marks or the cut­off marks may be fixed. Such cannot
be termed as beyond the power or competence of the recruiting agency
for providing of the cut­off marks or qualifying marks for the purpose
of interview."

Page 97 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

19. As held by the Apex Court in the case of
Inder Parkash

Gupta
(supra), it will be worthwhile to reproduce para 28 of the

decision which reads as under:

"28. The Jammu & Kashmir Medical (Gazetted) Service
Recruitment Rules, 1979 admittedly were issued under Section
124 of the Jammu and Kashmir Constitution which is in pari
materia with
Article 309
of the Constitution of India. The said
rules are statutory in nature. The Public Service Commission is
a body created under the Constitution. Each State constitutes
its own Public Service Commission to meet the Constitutional
requirement for the purpose of discharging its duties under the
Constitution. Appointment to service in a State must be in
consonance with the constitutional provisions and in
conformity with the autonomy and freedom of executive action.
Section 133 of the Constitution imposes duty upon the State to
conduct examination for appointment to the services of the
State. The Public Service Commission is also required to be
consulted on the matters enumerated under Section 133. While
going through the selection process the Commission, however,
must scrupulously follow the statutory rules operating in the
field. It may be that for certain purposes, for example, for the
purpose of short­listing, it can lay down its own procedure. The
Commission, however, must lay down the procedure strictly in

Page 98 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

consonance with the statutory rules. It can not take any action
which per se would be violative of the statutory rules or makes
the same inoperative for all intent and purport. Even for the
purpose of short­listing, the Commission cannot fix any kind of
cut off marks."

19.1 On facts of the present case, it has been found that the

procedure
laid down by
the Commission did not have the support of

the statutory rules and therefore the decision in the case of
Inder

Parkash Gupta
(supra) would apply on facts of the present case.

19.2 Even the decision in the case of
Manjit Singh
(supra), para 9

which is reproduced hereunder would indicate that the Commission

would have no power to impose a qualification which was not in

consonance with providing for efficiency of administration.

"9. In the present case, the stand of the appellant

Commission is that for medical services where the

members of service have to deal with the health and life

of the people, they must have some minimum standard of

efficiency and it is the bounden duty of the Commission to

ensure the same. It is perhaps with this view in mind that the

Commission fixed 45% minimum qualifying cut­off marks for

Page 99 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

general category candidates and 40% cut­off marks for

Scheduled Caste candidates. We feel, here lies the fallacy in

the whole reasoning of the Commission. It is no doubt true

that the Commission is an independent and autonomous body
and has to work without influence of any authority or the
government. It is rather under duty to act independently. But

at the same time the fact cannot be lost sight of that the State

Government is competent to lay down the qualifications

for differernt posts, and frame rules for the purpose or

take policy decisions which may of course not be against

the law. In this context, we may refer to the provisions

contained under
Article 320
of the Constitution. It reads as
under :

" 320. ­ Functions of Public Service Commissions­

1. It shall be the duty of the Union and the State
public Service Commissions to conduct examinations for
appointments to the services of the Union and the
services of the State respectively.

2. It shall also be the duty of the Union Public
Service Commission, if requested by any two or more
States to do, to assist those States in framing and
operating schemes of joint recruitment for any services
for which candidates possessing special qualifications
are required.

Page 100 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

3. The Union Public Service Commission or the
State Public Service Commission, as the case may be,
shall be consulted ­

(a) on all matters relating to methods of
recruitment to civil services and for civil posts;

(b) on the principles to be followed in making
appointments to civil services and posts and in
making promotions and transfers from one service
to another and on the suitability of candidates for
such appointments, promotions or transfers;

(c) on all disciplinary matters, affecting a person
serving under the Government of India or the
Government of a State in a civil capacity,
including memorials or petitions relating to such
matters;

(d) on any claim by or in respect of a person who is
serving or has served under the Government of
India or the Government of a State or under the
Crown in India or under the Government of Indian
State, in a civil capacity, that any costs incurred by
him in defending legal proceedings instituted
against him in respect of acts done or purporting to
be done in the execution of his duty should be paid
out of the Consolidated Fund of India, or, as the
case may be, out of the Consolidated Fund of the
State.

Page 101 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

(e) on any claim for the award of a pension in
respect of injuries sustained by a person while
serving under the Govt. of India or the Government
of a State or under the Crown in India or under
the Government of an Indian State, in a civil
capacity, and any question as to the amount of any
such award, and it shall be the duty of a Public
Service Commission to advise on any matter so
referred to them and on any other matter which the
President, or, as the case may be, the Governor of
the State may refer to them.

Provided that the President as respects the all­
India services and also as respects other services
and posts in connection with the affairs of the
Union and the Governor as respects other services
and posts in connection with the affairs of a State,
may make regulations specifying the matters in
which either generally or in any particular class of
case or in any particular circumstances, it shall
not be necessary for a Public Service Commission
to be consulted.

4. Nothing in clause (3) shall require a Public Service
Commission to be consulted as respects the manner in
which any provision referred to in clause (4) of
article 16

may be made or as respects the manner in which effect
may be given to the provisions of
article 335.

Page 102 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

5. All regulations made under the proviso to clause (3) by
the President or the Governor of a State shall be laid for
not less than fourteen days before each House of
Parliament or the House or each House of the Legislature
of the State, as the case may be, as soon as possible after
they are made and shall be subject to such modifications,
whether by way of repeal or amendment, as both Houses
of Parliament or the House or both Houses of Legislature
of the State may make during the session in which they
are so laid."

It is to be noted that under clause (3), the Union Public Service
Commission or the State Public Service Commission, has to be
consulted by the Government relating to methods of
recruitment in civil services and for civil posts, promotions and
transfers as well as about suitability of candidates etc. The
consultation may also be in regard to disciplinary' matters
affecting a person serving under the Government. We then find
that clause (4) particularly provides that nothing in clause (3)
shall require consultation of the Commission in respect to the
manner in which any provision referred to in
Article 16(4)
may
be made or the manner in which the effect may be given to the
provisions of
Article 335.
We may peruse clause (4) of
Article 16

and
Article 335.
They read as follows :

" 16(4)­Nothing in the article shall prevent the
State from making any provision for the reservation of

Page 103 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of
citizens which, in the opinion of the State, is not
adequately represented in the services under the State.

335.­Claims of Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes to services and posts­The claims of

the members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
Tribes shall be taken into consideration, consistently
with the maintenance of efficiency of administration in
the making of appointments to services and posts in
connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State.

Provided that nothing in this article shall prevent
in making of any provision in favour of the members of
the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes for
relaxation in qualifying marks in any examination or
lowering the standards of evaluation, for reservation in
matters of promotion to any class or classes of services or
posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a
State."

Article 16(4)
deals with Reservations and
Article 335
pertains
to consideration of reservation consistent with maintenance of
efficiency of the administration. As indicated earlier, clause (4)
of
Article 320
clearly provides that consultation of the
Commission would not be necessary in the matters relating to

Articles 16(4)
and
335.
Therefore, it would be a matter of

policy to be decided by the State Government as to what

Page 104 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

measures, if necessary, may be provided regarding

reservations vis­a­vis maintenance of efficiency in

services. Where no special qualification or any prescribed

standard of efficiency over and above the eligibility criteria is

provided by the Rules or the State, it would not be for the

Commission to impose any extra qualification/standard

supposedly for maintaining minimum efficiency which,

it thinks, may be necessary. No consultation with the

commission, in such matters, is envisaged in view of Clause (4)
of
Article 320
of the Constitution."

19.2 It would also be worthwhile to reproduce para 45 in the case of

P.V. Indiresan
(supra) which provided that a factor which was

unknown at the time of declaring examination cannot be used to

disentitle a candidate who is otherwise entitled for admission.

"45. No candidate who fulfils the prescribed eligibility
criteria and whose rank in the merit list is within the number
of seats available for admission, can be turned down, by saying
that he should have secured some higher marks based on the

marks secured by some other category of students. A factor

which is neither known nor ascertained at the time of

declaring the admission programme cannot be used to

disentitle a candidate to admission, who is otherwise

Page 105 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

entitled for admission. If the total number of seats in a

course is 154 and the number of seats reserved for OBCs is 42,
all the seats should be filled by OBC students in the order of
merit from the merit list of OBC candidates possessing the
minimum eligibility marks prescribed for admission. (subject
to any requirement for entrance examination.) When an eligible
OBC candidate is available, converting an OBC reservation
seat to general category is not permissible."

[Emphasis Supplied]

19.3 Even recently the Division Bench of this Court in Letters

Patent Appeal No. 1246 of 2019 (
Alpesh Surendrasinh Rathod

vs. State of Gujarat
) decided on 17.08.2020 was considering the

issue of "horizontal reservation" and in the context of providing for

qualifying marks in context of the grievance of the appellants

therein, the Division Bench considering the decision in the case of

Balaji Badhavath and Others
(supra) cited by Mr. Shukla in the

present appeals held as under:

"28.
Article 16
says that all citizens shall be equal in matters
relating to employment or appointment to any office under the
State.
In
Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India
reported in 1992
Supp (3) SCC 217 (reference paragraph no.'733'), Justice B.P.
Jeevan Reddy speaking for the majority of Judges has clarified

Page 106 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

that
Article 16(1)
is a facet of
Article 14.
Just as
Article 14

permits reasonable classification, so does
Article 16(1).
A
classification may involve reservation of seats. The argument
that clause (1) of
Article 16
permits only extending of
preferences, concessions and exemptions, but does not permit
reservation of appointments/posts has not been accepted. The
question whether clause (1) of
Article 16
permits any
reservation has been answered in the negative and it was
observed:

"741. ...............
Article 16(1)
being a facet of the
doctrine of equality enshrined in
Article 14
permits
reasonable classification just as
Article 14
does. In
our respectful opinion, the view taken by the
majority in Thomas is the correct one. We too believe
that
Article 16(1)
does permit reasonable
classification for ensuring attainment of the equality

of opportunity assured by it. For assuring

equality of opportunity, it may well be

necessary in certain situations to treat

unequally situated persons unequally. Not

doing so, would perpetuate and accentuate

inequality............

745. For the reasons given in the preceding
paragraphs, we must reject the argument that
clause (1) of
Article 16
permits only extending of
preference, concessions and exemptions, but does not

Page 107 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

permit reservation of appointments/posts.......".

29. The observations in paragraph no.812 of
Indra Sawhney

(supra) are relevant for our purposes and are extracted herein
below:­

"812 .We are also of the opinion that this rule of 50%
applies only to reservations in favour of backward
classes made under
Article 16(4).
A little
clarification is in order at this juncture: all
reservations are not of the same nature. There are
two types of reservations, which may, for the sake of
convenience, be referred to as 'vertical reservations'
and 'horizontal reservations'. The reservations in
favour of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and
other backward classes [under
Article 16(4)]
may be
called vertical reservations whereas reservations in
favour of physically handicapped [under Clause (1)
of
Article 16]
can be referred to as horizontal

reservations. Horizontal reservations cut across

the vertical reservations that is called inter­

locking reservations. To be more precise, suppose

3% of the vacancies are reserved in favour of
physically handicapped persons; this would be a
reservation relatable to Clause (1) of
Article 16.
The
persons selected against this quota will be placed in
the appropriate category; if he belongs to S.C.
category he will be placed in that quota by making

Page 108 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

necessary adjustments; similarly, if he belongs to
open competition (O.C.) category, he will be placed
in that category by making necessary adjustments.

Even after providing for these horizontal
reservations, the percentage of reservations in favour
of backward class of citizens remains ­ and should
remain ­ the same. This is how these reservations
are worked out in several States and there is no
reason not to continue that procedure."

30. Thus, it is evident that the reservation in favour of the
physically handicapped, dependents of freedom fighters and
Ex­servicemen is relatable to
Article 16 (1)
and can be referred
to as horizontal reservation. Such reservation has been granted
on the principle of reasonable classification embraced in Article

16(1) for ensuring attainment of the equality of

opportunity assured by it. It is just the same as Article 14

which permits reasonable classification on the doctrine of
equality enshrined in it.

31. As has been held in
Indra Sawhney
(supra) noted above,
the persons selected against the quota of physically
handicapped, dependents of freedom fighters and Ex­
servicemen are to be placed in the appropriate category to
which they belong by making necessary adjustment so that the
rule of 50% (percentage of reservation) is adhered to. The

Page 109 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

horizontal reservation, thus, cuts across the vertical
reservation.

32.
In
Anil Kumar Gupta and others vs. State of U.P. and

others
reported in 1995 SCC (5) 173, Supreme Court

explained the procedure to be adopted regarding the vertical
reservation and horizontal reservations in following terms:

"The proper and correct course is to first fill up the
O.C. quota (50%) on the basis of merit: then fill up
each of the social reservation quotas, i.e., S.C., S.T.
and B.C. the third step would be to find out how
many candidates belonging to special reservations
have been selected on the above basis. If the quota
fixed for horizontal reservations is already satisfied
­ in case it is an over­all horizontal reservation ­ no
further question arises. But if it is not so satisfied,
the requisite number of special reservation
candidates shall have to be taken and
adjusted/accommodated against their respective
social reservation categories by deleting the
corresponding number of candidates therefrom...."

33.
In
Sunaina Tripathi vs. State of U.P.
reported in 2012

(3) ADJ 463, the issue which came up before the Court was

"whether horizontal reservation for women provided under the
Government Order dated 26th February 1999 is restricted to

Page 110 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

each of the categories or is general in nature".

The Court

placing reliance upon
Indira Sawhney vs. Union of India

1992 Supp (3) SCC 217, Rajesh Kumar Daria vs.

Rajasthan Public Service Commission and others

reported in 2007 (8)
SCC 785, Anil Kumar Gupta
(supra)

culled out the following principles:

(i) vertical reservations cannot exceed 50% in an
year;

(ii) provision of reservation made for women
(dependents of freedom fighter and ex­servicemen) is
horizontal reservation;

(iii) the proper and correct course is to fill up the
general (open) category quota on the basis of merit
and then fill up each of the reserved category quotas
of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other
Backward Class, and thereafter, find out how many
candidates belonging to the special
reservations/horizontal reservations have been
selected on the above basis. If the quota fixed for
horizontal reservation is already satisfied, in case it
is an overall horizontal reservation, no further
question arises and if it is not satisfied, the requisite
number of the special reservation candidates under
the horizontal reservation have to be taken and
adjusted/accommodated against their respective

Page 111 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

categories by deleting the corresponding number of
candidates therefrom.

34. The Supreme Court in
Public Service Commission,

Uttaranchal vs. Mamta Bistand others
reported in AIR

2010 SC 2613, observed that the High Court allowed the writ

petition only on the ground that the horizontal reservation is
also to be applied as vertical reservation in favour of the
reserved category candidates.

The Court placing reliance on the
observations made in the case of
Rajesh Kumar Daria
(supra)
repelled the contention:

"The second relates to the difference between the
nature of vertical reservation and horizontal
reservation. Social reservations in favour of SC, ST
and OBC under
Article 16(4)
are Vertical
reservations'. Special reservations in favour of
physically handicapped, women etc., under
Articles
16(1)
or 15(3) are 'horizontal reservations'. Where a
vertical reservation is made in favour of a backward
class under
Article 16(4)
, the candidates belonging
to such backward class, may compete for non­
reserved posts and if the}' are appointed to the non­
reserved posts on their own merit, their numbers
will not be counted against the quota reserved for
the respective backward class. Therefore, if the
number of SC candidates, who by their own merit,
get selected to open competition vacancies, equals or

Page 112 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

even exceeds the percentage of posts reserved for SC
candidates, it cannot be said the reservation quota
for SCs has been filled. The entire reservation quota
will be intact and available in addition to those
selected under Open Competition category. [Vide ­

Indira Sawhney
(Supra),
R.K. Sabharwal v. State of
Punjab
,
1995 (2) SCC 745), Union of India v. Virpal
Singh Chauvan
, 1995 (
6) SCC 684 and Ritesh R.
Sah v. Dr. Y.L. Yamul
, 1996 (3) SCC 253)]. But the
aforesaid principle applicable to vertical (social)
reservations will not apply to horizontal (special)
reservations. Where a special reservation for women
is provided within the social reservation for
Scheduled Castes, the proper procedure is first to fill
up the quota for scheduled castes in order of merit
and then find out the number of candidates among
them who belong to the special reservation group of
'Scheduled Castes­Women'. If the number of women
in such list is equal to or more than the number of
special reservation quota, then there is no need for
further selection towards the special reservation
quota. Only if there is any shortfall, the requisite
number of scheduled caste women shall have to be
taken by deleting the corresponding number of
candidates from the bottom of the list relating to
Scheduled Castes. To this extent, horizontal

Page 113 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

(special) reservation differs from vertical (social)
reservation. Thus women selected on merit within
the vertical reservation quota will be counted
against the horizontal reservation for women."

35.
Article 16(4)
contemplates vertical (social) reservation for
SC/ST/OBC, which cannot exceed 50% of the total vacancies.
These reservations are not communal reservation, therefore,
candidates belonging to the SC/ST/OBC may compete for non­
reserved/open category (OC) post and if they get selected on the
OC post on merit, their numbers will not be counted against
the reserved quota for the respective social class. The entire
reservation quota shall remain intact and be available in
addition to those selected under OC.

36. The principle applicable to horizontal (special) reservation
is different and distinct from the principle applicable to
vertical reservation. The special reservation provided to
women, Ex­servicemen etc., under
Articles 15(3)
and
16(1)
is
horizontal reservation. Horizontal reservation cuts across the
vertical reservation, otherwise, it will be vertical reservation
breaching the 50% bench mark, which is prohibited. The
horizontal reservation is provided to the special class of
persons i.e. Ex­ servicemen/dependents of freedom fighters
irrespective of their social class SC/ST/OBC. Such persons on
being selected in the OC or in SC/ST/OBC quota will
necessarily be counted against the vacancy reserved for them
on horizontal basis irrespective of the social category to which

Page 114 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

they belong for the reason that the persons belonging to special
class may constitute a class in themselves, but as a class they
do not enjoy the benefit of vertical reservation. They have not
been classified as backward class. They would, therefore, have
to be adjusted in the social category to which they belong after
making necessary adjustment. For instance, 10 posts of Ex­
servicemen are to be filled up on horizontal reservation basis
and if that many number of Ex­servicemen are included in the
merit list of selected candidates prepared vertically i.e.
OC/SC/ ST/OBC, then nothing further is required to be done.
But against 10 Ex­servicemen only 5 could make it to the merit
list, then in that event 5 Ex­servicemen, if available, will have
to be adjusted in the respective social category i.e.
OC/OBC/ST/ST to which they belong by replacing the last
male candidate from that category. If the suitable Ex­
servicemen are not available then as per the impugned rule, the
vacancy is to be carried forward.

40. It is the action of the Recruitment Board at the time of
document verification that has given rise to the present
petition. At the time of physical verification of documents, the
candidates who had qualified in PET/PST in different
categories were to be called for physical verification of
documents in such numbers as prescribed under the Rules. The
Recruitment Board has fixed cut off marks for unreserved
category and other reserved categories where there were more

Page 115 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

candidates than the number of vacancies. This is a fair and
reasonable approach taken by the Recruitment Board. In fact,
it would be the only mode for the Recruitment Board to proceed
where number of candidates who had qualified in PET/PST
were more than number of vacancies in different categories.
But where there were less number of candidates than the
vacancies available, there would be no question of fixing any
cut off marks at the stage of physical verification of documents.
But surprisingly, the Recruitment Board even for the categories
where there were lesser number of candidates than the posts
available for that category, has fixed cut off marks equivalent
to the unreserved category of male and female and all reserved
categories under the vertical reservation. This meant that the
candidates falling under the horizontal reservation were to
compete or perform better than those selected candidates in
vertical category. This is where the petitioners were aggrieved
and have approached this Court. This arbitrariness is because
of the instructions issued by the Recruitment Board dated
03.05.2019.

45. When the time came to call the appellants for the
verification of their documents, the Board introduced the
concept of qualifying marks. Clause 10 of the advertisement
provides that relaxation may be given to the Ex­servicemen if
sufficient number of candidates are unable to obtain the
minimum qualifying marks. It is suggestive of the fact that the

Page 116 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

relaxation, which was intended to be given as per the condition
of the recruitment was in context with the minimum qualifying
marks i.e. 40% as
referred to above
and not the qualifying
marks, that may be fixed by the Board for other category of the
candidates for the purpose of preparing the final select list on
merit. Clause 10 in the advertisement has been provided with a
purpose and with definite intention. The intention is to provide
employment to the Ex­servicemen and to call for as many
candidates as possible from the category of Ex­servicemen
against the reserved posts.
In this context, the decision of the
Supreme Court
referred to above
in the case of
P.V. Indresan
and others
(supra) assumes significance. The respondents

faltered at this stage. The respondents relied upon Rule 6A

for the purpose of providing qualifying marks

applicable even to the Ex­servicemen. We have already

quoted Rule 6A of the 1975 Rules above. It is stated

therein that in the case of direct recruitment, if

sufficient number of candidates belonging to the

category of Ex­servicemen are not available on the basis

of general standard to fill all the vacancies reserved for

them, the candidates belonging to the category of Ex­

servicemen may be selected under a relaxed standard of

selection to make up the deficiency in the reserved quota

subject to the condition that such relaxation should not

affect the level of performance of such candidates. This

Rule 6A rather is apparently making a provision for

Page 117 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

selecting Ex­servicemen under the relaxed standard to make up

the deficiency. This Rule 6A cannot be read to nullify the

appointment of the reserved category of Ex­servicemen. If

the stand of the respondents is accepted, the very

purpose of horizontal reservation would stand

frustrated. It is settled law that the horizontal

reservation has to be provided by cutting across

amongst the vertical reservation and if a candidate

having a right of selection under any of the horizontal

reservation categories, secures lesser marks than the

last candidate in the vertical reservations category, the

candidate from horizontal reservation shall be pulled

up for filling up the last seat in that category of vertical

reservation. The benefit of horizontal reservation could

not have been denied to the appellants herein merely

because the last candidate in the select list was higher

in merit even after providing 20% relaxation to the Ex­

servicemen. The provisions of
Article 335
of the Constitution

shall not be attracted for filling the seats amongst the
reservationists of the horizontal category vis­a­vis the vertical
category."

19.4 In other words, even the Division Bench of this Court,

considering various decisions cited before it has held that the

concept of qualifying marks in "horizontal reservation" cannot work

Page 118 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

in a manner so as to restrict the right of selection of a candidate who

is otherwise entitled to an appointment in the horizontal category.

19.5 Thus, we are of the opinion that the GPSC at the time of

preparing the final merit list, in the present case, could not have

applied the criteria of minimum qualifying marks. The action of the

GPSC in prescribing qualifying standard for female candidates for

reserved quota on the basis of the marks secured by "last male

candidate" of the respective category and then granting 10%

relaxation at the time of final selection list is dehors the Statutory

Rules.

20. On all these counts therefore, the directions issued by the

learned Single Judge in para 57 of the decision, as quoted in

paragraph no. 3.7 hereinabove, especially in (a), (b), (c), (g), (k) stand

confirmed. As far as the observations made in para 57 (f) that the

horizontal reservation cannot be maintained by taking away a slice

from quota of vertical reserevation is held to be contrary to spirit of

horizontal and compartmental reservation in light of the decision in

the case of
Rajesh Kumar Daria
(supra). LPA No. 1187 of 2015 is

Page 119 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

therefore disposed of accordingly. Remaining appeals are dismissed.

21. As far as the Civil Applications are concerned, in view of order

in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1110 of 2015, Civil Application No.

2 of 2016 (OLD No. 3733 of 2016) for joining party in Letters

Patent Appeal No. 1110 of 2015 is not entertained and is disposed of

accordingly. By virtue of interim orders passed by this Court dated

23.09.2015 and 14.10.2015, candidates who were even otherwise

eligible inasmuch as they had marks above the cut off marks and

who are already appointed will be continued as such. Their

appointments shall not be disturbed. Connected Civil Applications

are accordingly disposed of. Civil Applicant of Civil Application No.

1 of 2016 (Old No. 13096 of 2016) is however allowed.

22. The original petitioners - respondents in the respective

Appeals - the 21 female candidates in whose places male candidates

were recommended and appointed under interim orders may be now

appointed on their respective posts pursuant to the Order in these

Appeals within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of

the copy of the writ of this Order. These appointees shall be given

Page 120 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

the benefit of notional seniority from the date of joining the service

of the candidates, who have been appointed pursuant to the Interim

Orders of this court dated 23.09.2015. No costs.

(PER : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI)
CONCURRING :

1. I concur and respectfully agree with the view expressed by

learned Brother Justice Biren Vaishnav. I may add the following :

2. The purpose of providing 30% Horizontal Reservation to

women in the Recruitment Process for Forest Department for the

post of Assistant Conservator of Forest and Range Forest Officer was

to ensure appointment of women to the extent of 30% of total

vacancies in each category notified by the Advertisement dated

1.3.2010. The said avowed object of appointment / presence of 30%

women in the different categories in number of posts notified on

1.3.2010 was defeated by GPSC by the so called Policy Decision

dated 25.10.2001 based on the opinion of learned Advocate General

dated 6.10.2001 to introduce the relaxation of 10% of minimum cut­

off marks computed on the basis of last cut­off marks for the Male in

Page 121 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

each category. This linkage of relaxation for women to Male's cut­off

marks had no rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved. The

re­entry of males on the posts reserved for women to the extent of

30% on the basis that the women candidates even on such lower and

relaxed criteria fixed of cut­off marks for women on the basis of

policy decision of GPSC were not available, was nothing but taking

by the left hand what was given by the right hand to the women

folks in the said Recruitment Process. This was not only contrary to

the law
laid down by
the Supreme Court in the case of
Saurav

Yadav
(Supra) approving the Division Bench's decision of this

Court in the case of
Tamanna Ashokkumar Desai
(Supra) which

has meticulously laid down the step­wise entry of women candidates

in the Horizontal Reservation in compartmentalized manner, but

also such fixation of lower cut­off marks for women category by the

GPSC without any prior Notification or clarity in the Advertisement

or in the Rules promulgated by the State, was in our opinion self­

defeating exercise which violated
Article 14
of the Constitution of

India i.e. right of equality in consideration.

3. The said policy decision based on the opinion of the learned

Advocate General in different circumstances as quoted elsewhere

Page 122 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

could not be applied in the present Recruitment process for Forest

Department at the time of preparation of the final recommendations

for the appointments by GPSC and it was totally uncalled for. The

very concept of equality without any discrimination on the basis of

gender, in our opinion, was violated by linking the minimum cut­off

and qualifying marks for women category to the lowest cut­off marks

of the male category. This comparison and linkage per se is gender

discrimination and unnecessarily views females as inferior mortals

or less intelligent than males, which they are not. An independent

lower cut off with relaxation, prescribed at the beginning of

recruitment process could be understood but the very idea of linking

it to the lowest cut off marks in Males category, in our opinion, is

abhorrent and unpalatable idea. The relaxation of marks to support

and ensure full entry on Horizontal Reservation for women is a State

policy to ensure the equality, but not by comparing their IQ level

with males as if later is superior. The Constitution not only

guarantees equality without discrimination on the basis of gender

but, the real equality could be achieved by making the horizontal

entry of the women to the full extent of 30% of seats reserved for

them, only if such 30% posts were actually filled up by the qualified

Page 123 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

female candidates available in all the categories. They were all

qualified and faced interviews and were not otherwise rejected. The

only sledge or axe which fell on the unfortunate women folks in the

present recruitment process, 21 in number, who were removed

from the list of selected candidates finally on the basis of aforesaid

arbitrary fixation of 10% relaxation of cut­off marks by GPSC. They

were not the candidates otherwise without the merit and

qualifications. Their appointment would not have breached the

norms and bar of efficiency and merit through the bottom.

4. The power to fix cut­off marks with the GPSC is not in doubt

but, the manner and point of time when it was done is questionable

in the present case and cannot be sustained, since it was done at the

fag end without prior knowledge and notification to public at large

including the candidates, who appeared in the said Selection

process.

5. We are of the considered opinion that the law as now settled

by the Supreme Court and the Division Bench of this Court in the

case of
Tamanna Ashokkumar Desai
(Supra) has to be

implemented in true letter and spirit meticulously to achieve the

Page 124 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

object of giving 30% reservation to women provided under the

Reservation Rules promulgated by the State de facto by their actual

appointments to the extent of 30% of total seats and to achieve the

object of real equality for women candidates vis­a­vis the male

candidates. The number of females present in Select List has to be

30% of total vacancies and their actual appointment was necessary,

which has been prevented by introducing this 10% relaxation of

marks with reference to bottom Male category marks illogically. The

reliance placed by learned counsel for the GPSC on the previous

Supreme Court decisions for admission to the medical colleges is not

opportune and exactly applicable to the Recruitment Process in the

present case in the Forest Department, where the question of life

and health of the public at large to be handled by Doctors, who

qualified in that process is not the scenario here, when the

Recruitment Process for Assistant Conservator of Forest or Range

Forest Officer is being considered.

6. Today, with the advancement of Education, Technology and

Women Empowerment in India, the women folks are entering the

public service from the post of Peon to the post of Pilots for Fighter

Planes, Scientist, Doctors, CAs and Lawyers being other lot of

Page 125 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

professionals and with so many IT professionals in both genders,

they are doing great service to the Nation and their equality is not

now a far­fetched dream in our Country but a stark reality.

7. The reservation provided to women folks in the Recruitment

Process as of now besides their entry on the basis of their merit by

way of Horizontal Reservation cannot be permitted to be defeated by

the policy decision taken on the file notings of the GPSC, as was

done in the present case. Therefore, we cannot countenance the

stand of the GPSC taken in the present case before us and we fully

affirm the view of the learned Single Judge and with the detailed

reasons and discussions given in the present Judgment by the

Brother Justice Biren Vaishnav, J., with which I fully concur with

the reasons and the final conclusions and with a direction to the

GPSC to implement the judgment of this Court in the case of

Tamanna Ashokkumar Desai
(Supra) as affirmed by the

Supreme Court in the case of
Saurav Yadav
(Supra), the GPSC

should revise the Recommendations List accordingly and the

consequential appointments may be given to the women category

and the males who were appointed under the interim orders of this

Court in 21 posts reserved and required to be filled by women

Page 126 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

category in this selection process will naturally have to make way for

such eligible women candidates. No equity or continuation in service

can be claimed by such displaced 21 male category persons.

8. However, if the State considers it to be possible and services of

such persons are required by the State, they may either be employed

by the Forest Department on contractual basis and may be offered

another opportunity to again compete in the fresh Selection or

Recruitment Process to be held by the GPSC in the next Selection

Process upon vacancies arising. However, they cannot claim any

right of continuity in the service on the post of Assistant Forest

Conservator or Range Forest Officer, as of now, merely because they

were appointed temporarily under the interim orders of this Court,

which will stand obliterated by this final judgment and no right of

continuity of service can be said to have been vested with such male

candidates, 21 in number, who were temporarily appointed on the

posts reserved for women category subject to final decision in these

Appeals and the entire process will be governed by the law laid down

herein­above and in the case of
Tamanna Ashokkumar Desai

(Supra) by the Division Bench of this Court as affirmed by the

Page 127 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

Supreme Court in
Saurav Yadav
(Supra).

9.
Incidentally and luckily, before we could sign off and

pronounce this Judgment, we came across the Judgment of the

Supreme Court pronounced on 25.3.2021 in WPC No.1109 of 2020

(
Nitisha v. Union of India
), in which reiterating the concern of the

Supreme Court for gender equality in the case of
Secretary,

Ministry of Defence v. Babita Puniya & Others
dated

17.2.2020, reported in (2020) 7 SCC 469 in which the Supreme

Court directed grant of Permanent Commissions to Women, who

were engaged in Army in Short Service Commissions (SSC) in its

landmark Judgment in which the following epoch making

observations were made by Hon'ble Dr.Justice D. Y.

Chandrachud for the Bench, resounding the Constitutional spirit

of equality without any gender discrimination in the following

terms :

"Seventy years after the birth of a post­colonial independent

State, there is still a need for change in attitudes and

mindsets to recognise the commitment to the values of the

Constitution. The submissions advanced in the note tendered
to the Supreme Court are based on sex stereotypes premises on

Page 128 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

assumptions about socially ascribed roles of gender which

discriminate against women. Underlying the statement

that it is a "greater challenge" for women officers to meet the
hazards of service "owing to their prolonged absence during
pregnancy, motherhood and domestic obligations towards their
children and families" is a strong stereotype which assumes
that domestic obligations rest solely on women. Reliance on the
"inherent physiological differences between men and women"

rests in a deeply entrenched stereotypical and

constitutionally flawed notion that women are the

"weaker" sex and may not undertake tasks that are "too

arduous" for them. Arguments founded on the physical

strengths and weaknesses of men and women and on
assumptions about women in the social context of marriage
and family do not constitute a constitutionally valid basis for
denying equal opportunity to women officer."

In the Judgment pronounced on 25.3.2021, the same Hon'ble

Judge reiterated the concern of Supreme Court in the following

words :

"We must recognize here, that the structures of our society

have been created by males for males. Therefore, certain

structures which may appear to be facially harmless are an

indication of insidious patriarchal system. A facially

equal application of laws to unequal parties is farce, when law

Page 129 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

is structured to cater to male standpoint. Superficial face

of Equality does not stand true to the principles

enshrined in the Constitution."

We cannot emphasize more or add anything more to apply the

same Constitutional spirit to support our aforesaid view.

10. Before we part with, we would humbly place on record our

acknowledgement of the guidance given by the judgment of the

Division Bench of this Court in the case of
Tamanna Ashokkumar

Desai
(Supra) where the Author of
the said judgment
(Hon'ble

Mr.Justice J.B. Pardiwala, sitting with Hon'ble the Chief

Justice Vikram Nath) took a view and with great respects, a

correct one, even deviating from His Lordship's own view sitting

singly earlier in the case of
Lekhabahen Kanaiyalal Modi

(Supra).

That only, in our humble opinion, displays the sterling

character of a Judge, who is receptive enough to change his own

earlier view and render an exposition of law with axiomatic clarity

by a Division Bench view in the case of
Tamanna Ashokkumar

Desai
(Supra).

We are beholden and respectfully agree with the

Page 130 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021

C/LPA/1105/2015 CAVJUDGMENT Dt. 31.03.2021

GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Versus NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI & 2 other(s)

said view in the case of
Tamanna Ashokkumar Desai
(Supra).

We also place on record our appreciation for the valuable assistance

by all the learned Senior Counsels and other learned counsels, who

appeared in the said matter.

(DR. VINEET KOTHARI, J)

The Appeals are accordingly disposed of. No costs.

(BIREN VAISHNAV, J) (DR. VINEET KOTHARI, J)
DIVYA

Page 131 of 131

Downloaded on : Fri Jul 16 01:10:19 IST 2021