'Stipulations In Advertisement Are Exclusive Domain Of Authority': Gujarat High Court Refuses To Permit a Rajasthan Civil JudgeTo Apply For Gujarat Civil Judge Post

Desirous of the appointment, the Petitioner sought permission from the Rajasthan High Court for applying but till the last date of application form, the permission was not received. Since the Petitioner could not fulfil the online application form, a detailed representation was made in March 2022 requesting the authority to consider her appointment. This representation was not responded to by the authorities. Vide the petition, the Petitioner sought that her case be considered for the post of Civil Judge pursuant to the advertisement. Further, it was sought that Clause 10(7) of the advertisement which did not entitle her to apply, be declared contrary to the provisions of the Recruitment Rules.

The primary contentions of the Petitioner were that it was only basis one stipulation in the advertisement that the Petitioner could not participate, and this stipulation was contrary to the Recruitment Rules. It was also urged that a specific permission was sought from the Rajasthan High Court which was not available at the time of application and therefore, she was denied of the opportunity to participate.

Justice Ashutosh Shastri while reading Clause 7 of the advertisement concluded that the Petitioner was not an employee of the allied department. Therefore, she was in contravention of a specific stipulation which rendered her ineligible to apply. Justice Shastri was 'not inclined either to interfere or to substitute any of the conditions stipulated in the advertisement.' The Bench further opined that granting any relief to the Petitioner would circumvent Clause 10(7) which was 'impermissible'. The High Court also remarked that the scope of judicial review on this issue was limited by a catena of decisions. Reference was placed on Commissioner of Police v. Raj Kumar (2021) 8 SCC 347 to reiterate:

"Courts exercising judicial review cannot second guess the suitability of a candidate for any public office or post. Absent evidence of malice or mindlessness (to the materials), or illegality by the public employer, an intense scrutiny on why a candidate is excluded as unsuitable renders the courts' decision suspect to the charge of trespass into executive power of determining suitability of an individual for appointment."

Further, reliance was placed on Dr. Thingujam Achouba Singh and others Vs. Dr. H. Nabachandra Singh and others (2020) 20 SCC 312 to emphasise:

"The eligibility criteria will be within the domain of the employer and no candidate can seek as a matter of right, to provide relaxation clause."

The High Court also noted that the advertisement was issued in the month of February 2022 and yet the Petitioner waited to bring the petition a few days before the actual examination.

Accordingly, due to these reasons and precedents, the High Court refused to interfere with the petition.

Case title - NIRMAL JAGMOHAN SHARMA Versus HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT & 1 other(s)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 195

Click Here To Read/Download Order