Biren Vaishnav, J. - (1.) In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the prayer of the petitioner reads as under: "6a Admit, hear and allow this petition. B Quash and set aside result dated 10/5/2018 declared on the basis of marks allotted in oral interview. C By way of interim relief your lordships may be pleased to grant status quo by restraining the respondent no.1 from executing, operation and implementation of the result sheet dated 10.05.2018 and all further orders arising therefrom qua 39 posts of Assistant Professor, Sanskrit. D Your lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the oral interviews dated 16/04/2018 to 21/04/2018 and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to conduct fresh oral interviews as per reasonable, ethical, moral, fair and transparent standards and practices in accordance with the law and in the interest of justice."
(2.) Facts in brief are as under: 2.1 Petitioners, three in number, appeared in the written test, as well as interview for selection to the post of Assistant Professor (Gujarat Educational Services, Class-II) in the subject of Sanskrit. 2.2 As advertisement for 39 posts was issued being advertisement no. 74. 2016-2017 dated 15.11.2016, the petitioners applied under the general category. The cut off marks for General Category, Male was 51.53 and Female was 50.44. The petitioners secured the following marks and ranks respectively: JUDGEMENT_49_LAWS(GJH)3_2020_1.html JUDGEMENT_49_LAWS(GJH)3_2020_1.html 2.3 The case of the petitioners is that they were aggrieved by the irrational marks alloted to the candidates at the interview. An RTI Application was made on 21.05.2018. The case of the petitioners is that there was arbitrariness and nepotism at the interview. The schedule of the interview was declared on 29.01.2018. As per advertisement, three times the number of candidates needed to be called, which would be 117, whereas 181 candidates were called for the interview.
(3.) Mr.Yatin N Oza, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Mr.Jit Patel, learned advocate for the petitioners, submitted that the process of selection was fraught with arbitrariness and nepotism. He supported his submission by drawing the Court's attention to the following facts:- (I) A letter dated 17/4/2018 was written to the Education Department pointing out that one Rajabhai Kathad was to be part of the interview panel and his own kith and kin were to appear at such interview. The letter was annexed at page 65 to the petition. (II) On such a representation though Rajabhai Kathad was removed from the panel of experts for the interview, the marks allotted by him on day one came to be counted and Ms.Komal Shaileshbhai Bhatt, Hemalbhai A Kansagra and Jagmal Vej Anand got high marks in the interview and were placed on the select list by virtue of their proximity with Rajabhai Kathad. Rajabhai Kathad was replaced on the panel with Ms.Mayuri Bhatia. (III) Similarly, one Mr.Arknath Chaudhary, a Vice-Chancellor of the Somnath University was on the panel who alloted higher marks to students of Somnath University. One Pankajkumar Raval, who secured 16.08 in written marks out of 50, was alloted 37.05 in the oral interview. Pankajkumar Rawal is serving at Somnath University as member of Academic Council and Faculty Dean of Purana subject. Three students, Ms.Atrikumar Rajgor, Hardikkumar Joshi and Mayaben Parmar students of Somnath University are alloted higher marks. 3.1 In support of his submissions vis-a-vis Rajabhai Kathad, Mr.Yatin Oza, learned Senior Counsel, drew the Court's attention to information received through RTI reply which suggested that Komal Bhatt, Hemal Kansagara and Jagmal Vejannand had pursued their M.A/M.Phil and Ph.D courses in the Saurashtra University. Hemal Kansagra in his reply had admitted that Rajabhai Kathad was a part of the interview committee. 3.2 For lending support to the allegation of Mr.Arknath Chaudhary, it was submitted that the selectee Pankaj Rawal was at Somnath University of which Mr.Arknath Chaudhary was Vice-Chancellor and Dr.Mayuri Bhatt who replaced Rajabhai Kathad was a Member of the Executive Council and Pankaj Rawal was Dean of the said University. Website details of the University were annexed at page 66 and 67. 3.3 For Mr.Hardik Joshi, it was submitted that he did his Ph.D in January 2018 through Somnath University. Mayaben was a research scholar at Somnath University. 3.4 Dr.Mayuri Bhatia, who replaced Mr.Rajabhai Kathad was a member of the Executive Council of Somnath University. Mr.Jatinbhai Chavda, a selected candidate was a colleague of Ms.Bhatia. Similarly, one Dilipkumar Zerabhai was a student of Ms.Bhatia. Instance of Arknath Chaudhary's proximity to selected candidates was demonstrated to show that they were students at some point of time at Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan, Jaipur, where Arknath Chaudhary was associated. The selected students were Hardik Rajyaguru, Jayesh Vyas and Jyotsana Singh. 3.5 Proximity of Ms.Mayuri Bhatia, with a selected candidate Bhagini Patel is sought to be demonstrated through Bhatia's reply at page 158/159 that Nayana Naik, who replaced Mr.Kathad was also a Ph.D student with Ms.Bhagini Patel and found herself on the expert panel. 3.6 Mr.Oza, learned Senior Counsel, submitted that no criterion was prescribed for allocation of marks to the candidates for the interview resulting in unguided discretion. There was room to favour the candidates in proximity with the experts as more than three times the candidates were called for interview as the weightage of interview was 50% in breach of the declaration of law by the Apex Court in various decisions. 3.7 Mr.Yatin Oza, learned Senior Counsel, relied on the following decisions: (I) P.Mohanan Pillai vs. State of Kerala & Ors., 2007 AIR(SC) 2840 in support of his submission that for unexplained reasons cut off marks were lowered as admitted by GPSC in their affidavit-inreply. (II) Krishna Yadav and Another vs. State of Haryana and others., 1994 4 SCC 165, to submit that when there are serious allegations of favouritism, the selection must be set at nought. (III) Bishu Biswas and others vs. Union of India and others.,2014 5 SCC 174 where relying on the decision in the case of Ashok Kumar Yadav vs. State of Haryana., 1985 4 SCC 417, the Supreme Court held that allocation of 22.2% marks for viva-voce was excessive and unreasonably high. That marks allotted to the written test as well as oral interviews were same i.e. 50%.;