Decided on July 31,2014

State Of Gujarat And 2 Appellant
Vyas Prakashkumar Gunvantbhai And 3 Respondents


- (1.) THESE applications are at the instance of the State of Gujarat for review of our judgment and order dated 28th December 2012 passed in Special Civil Application No.16140 of 2006 and other allied matters.
(2.) CONTROVERSY in the main writ -application : The main writ -applications were filed by the unsuccessful candidates who had applied for appointment to the post of Lok Rakshak pursuant to the advertisement published by the State Government dated 7th February 2004. The grievance voiced in those petitions was that the entire procedure which was undertaken by the State Government, viz. the Gujarat Subordinate Services Selection Board, in selecting the candidates who had applied in response to the advertisement dated 7th February 2004 was illegal and violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part -III of the Constitution of India. The advertisement dated 7th February 2004 provided for various details regarding educational qualifications, sanctioned posts and reservation of posts for Scheduled Caste (SC), Scheduled Tribe (ST) and Socially and Economically Backward Class (SEBC) candidates.
(3.) IN response to the advertisement referred to above, more than 1,60,000 applications were received by the State Government. In all, 3000 posts were advertised according to the advertisement dated 7th February 2004. The breakup of the posts advertised is as under : "07.02.2004 ADVERTISEMENT FOR 3000 POSTS SC ST SEBC EX -ARMY GENERAL TOTAL Armed Constable 79 186 433 10.00% 1267 1965 Unarmed Constable 67 121 277 10.00% 570 1035   146 307 710     1837 3000 " In all, 16,325 candidates were interviewed and finally a merit list of 3000 candidates was prepared. The final merit list was published in the Official Gazette on 1st July 2006. The case of the original petitioners was that the reserved posts for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Socially and Economically Backward Classes were 146, 307 and 710 respectively, whereas, according to the policy adopted by the State Government in respect of reservation, the same should have been 225, 450 and 810 respectively.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.