RAJDEEPKUMAR BALDEVBHAI CHAUDHARY vs GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/SCA/13043/2026 (GJHC240685002026) JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13043 of 2026
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==========================================================
RAJDEEPKUMAR BALDEVBHAI CHAUDHARY
Versus
GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR RATHIN P RAVAL(5013) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR PREMAL R JOSHI(1327) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL
Date : 09/09/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Rathin Raval appearing on
behalf of the petitioner and learned advocate Mr.Premal Joshi
appearing on behalf of respondent no.1 – Gujarat Public
Service Commission.
2. The petitioner, by way of this petition, challenges his
exclusion from the interview from the post of Medical Officer
fo Health, Class-I in advertisement no.117/2025-2026 inter
alia on the ground that the present applicant does not possess
the requisite experience as required under the recruitment
Page 1 of 22
Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Wed Sep 09 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 22:43:42 IST 2026
C/SCA/13043/2026 (GJHC240685002026) JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2026
rule and the advertisement which is based on the recruitment
rule.
3. Facts, in brief, being that the petitioner had completed
his M.B.B.S in the year 2011 and had done his compulsory
internship between the period 2011-2012 and whereas, the
petitioner was also been appointed as a contractual / private
Junior Resident in the Department of Medicine at GMERS
Medical College, Patan and later at GMERS Medical College,
Gandhinagar.
3.1. It would appear that the present petitioner had joined as
a Medical Officer, Class-II since 18.04.2016 with the Primary
Health Centre in Patan and later as Taluka Health Officer in
Patan and Senior Medical Officer in Mehsana up to the period
2022. It would appear that the petitioner, during the course of
his employment, had successfully completed his post graduate
degree of M.D. (Community Medicine) from the PDU
Government Medical College, Rajkot as an In-service Resident
Doctor under the State Government’s In-service Postgraduate
Education Policy. It would appear that the present petitioner
was thereafter working as a Senior Medical Officer, District
Training Team, Mehsana from 01.12.2025 onwards.
Page 2 of 22
Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Wed Sep 09 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 22:43:42 IST 2026
C/SCA/13043/2026 (GJHC240685002026) JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2026
3.2. It would appear that the respondent – GPSC had issued
an advertisement on 31.01.2026 being advertisement
no.117/2025-2026 for application to the post of Medical
Officer of Health, Class-I for 9 Municipal Corporations
th
originally and whereas, the 10 Corporation - Jamnagar
Municipal Corporation was added later on vide a separate
notification. The advertisement inter alia envisaged
appointment subject to fulfillment of qualification and
whereas, while the present petitioner had applied and had
fulfilled all the educational qualification, vide communication
dated 29.08.2026, the petitioner had been excluded from the
list of candidates who were selected for interview and
whereas, being aggrieved by the said order, the present
petitioner has approached this Court.
3.3. Apposite here would be to state that the said order only
lists roll numbers of 15 successful candidates and 39
unsuccessful candidates and whereas, the roll number of the
petitioner being 101000042 appears in the unsuccessful
candidates’ list. It would also be apposite to mention here that
the list does not mention as to the reason for disqualification.
Page 3 of 22
Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Wed Sep 09 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 22:43:42 IST 2026
C/SCA/13043/2026 (GJHC240685002026) JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2026
4. Learned advocate Mr.Raval for the petitioner would
assail the exclusion of the petitioner and would submit that
while the order of exclusion does not list out any reason, yet,
the petitioner has been orally informed that the petitioner has
been excluded since the petitioner did not have the requisite
experience as per the recruitment rule.
4.1. Attention of this Court is drawn to the recruitment rule
which inter alia specifies that a candidate should have a
degree in medicine, a postgraduate degree in medicine and a
candidate is requires to have at least 5 years of experience as
Medical Officer, Class-II in public health in the government or
in any other government undertaking etc. Learned advocate
would submit that while the petitioner had been serving as a
Medical Officer, Class-II since the year 2016, yet, the rejection
/ exclusion being on the ground that the experience of 5 years
was not after the petitioner had acquired the educational
qualification. That is to state that the petitioner had not
completed 5 years as a Medical Officer after getting his
Postgraduate Degree in Medicine.
4.2. Learned advocate would submit that the recruitment
rule and the advertisement not specifying such a requirement,
Page 4 of 22
Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Wed Sep 09 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 22:43:42 IST 2026
C/SCA/13043/2026 (GJHC240685002026) JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2026
it was well erroneous on the part of the respondent to have
excluded the petitioner on the ground of not having requisite
experience after having acquired the requisite qualification.
Thus assailing the decision, learned advocate would request
that the respondents may be directed to include the name of
the petitioner in the list of candidates selected for interview.
5. As against the same, the present petition is vehemently
contested by learned advocate Mr.Premal Joshi appearing on
behalf of the respondent – Gujarat Public Service Commission.
5.1. Learned advocate would submit, under instruction, that
the petitioner had been excluded since the petitioner did not
fulfill the requisite experience criteria. Learned advocate
would submit that as per the recruitment rule which is
followed in the advertisement, a candidate is suppose to have
a degree and postgraduate degree in Medicine and
whereafter a candidate should have 5 years experience in
Public Health as Medical Officer, Class-II. Learned advocate
would submit that the petitioner having completed his post
graduation on 30.11.2025, the petitioner did not have a
requisite experience and therefore, his name had been
excluded.
Page 5 of 22
Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Wed Sep 09 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 22:43:42 IST 2026
C/SCA/13043/2026 (GJHC240685002026) JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2026
5.2. Learned advocate Mr.Joshi in this regard would draw the
attention of this Court to instructions in the advertisement,
more particularly, instruction no.6(2)(a) which is with regard
to experience and whereas, learned advocate would submit
that the said instruction has very clearly recorded that the
candidate should have the requisite experience after having
obtained educational quantification.
5.3. Learned advocate would also rely upon Rule 8(8)(a) of
the Gujarat Civil Services (Classification and Recruitment
(General)) Rules, 1967 (‘Classification Rules’ for short) and
whereas, it is submitted that the said rules also inter alia
provide that where a qualifications prescribed for any service
or post, include a qualification as to practical experience for a
given period, then, unless otherwise provided in the
recruitment rule, the experience would be counted from the
date on which the requisite qualifications are obtained and
the same would be with reference to the last date fixed for
receipt of such application. Learned advocate would submit
that the petitioner not having the experience of 5 years as a
Medical Officer, Class-II after having completed his post
graduation degree, the petitioner’s name had not been
Page 6 of 22
Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Wed Sep 09 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 22:43:42 IST 2026
C/SCA/13043/2026 (GJHC240685002026) JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2026
considered and whereas, the respondent had taken a decision
in accordance with the recruitment rule and the
advertisement and hence, learned advocate would request
this Court not to intervene.
5.4. Learned advocate would also refer to a decision of a
learned Coordinate Bench of this Court in case of Kaizad
Mehernosh Dastoor vs. Chairman, Gujarat Public Service
Commission & Anr. rendered in Special Civil Application
No.3715/2025 on 27.03.2025 and whereas, learned advocate
would submit that the issue raised in the present petition is
squarely covered by the decision of the learned Coordinate
Bench. Learned advocate would submit that in a similar
scenario, the learned Coordinate Bench had not entertained
the petition where the candidate did not have the requisite
qualification. Learned advocate would submit that having
regard to the law laid down by learned Coordinate Bench also,
this Court may not entertain the present writ petition.
6. Heard learned Counsels appearing on behalf of the
respective parties and perused the documents on record.
6.1. The short question which arises for consideration of this
Page 7 of 22
Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Wed Sep 09 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 22:43:42 IST 2026
C/SCA/13043/2026 (GJHC240685002026) JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2026
Court would be that whether the respondent is justified in
excluding the petitioner for interview to the post of Medical
Officer, Class-I on the ground that the petitioner did not have
5 years experience as Public Health Medical Officer, Class-II
in government service after having obtained a postgraduate
degree.
6.2. Learned advocate for the petitioner contending that the
requirement of experience was independent than the
requirement of qualification, whereas, learned advocate on
behalf of respondent submitting, more particularly relying
upon Recruitment Rule, the advertisement and the
Classification Rules, that the requirement of experience would
have to be counted from the date of acquiring of the
qualification and whereas, since the petitioner not having
experience of 5 years after the date of completing his post
graduation, therefore, the petitioner not being entitled.
6.3. To consider the present issue, it would be apposite to
refer to the relevant portions of the Recruitment Rules:-
“(b) possess
(i) a degree of Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor
of Surgery (M.B.B.S) of any of the Universities
established or Incorporated by or under the Central
Page 8 of 22
Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Wed Sep 09 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 22:43:42 IST 2026
C/SCA/13043/2026 (GJHC240685002026) JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2026
or State Act In India or any other educational
institution recognized as such or declared to be a
deemed university under section 3 of the University
Grants Commission Act, 1956, or possess any other
qualification specified in first or second schedule to
the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and
(ii) a post graduate degree or diploma in Public
Health/Preventive and Social Medicine/Social and
Preventive Medicine/ Community Medicine/
Community Health or M.D (Medicine/
Microbiology/ Pathology) obtained from any of the
Universities or incorporated by or under the
Central or State Act in India or possess an
equivalent qualification recognized by the Medical
Council of India.
(c) (i) have at least five years public health
experience as Medical Officer Class II, in the
Government; or
(ii) have at least five years public health experience
in the Government Undertaking /Board
/Corporation /Local Bodies/Grant in aid institution/
Hospital run by the trust or private or Public Sector
Organization on the post which can be considered
equivalent to the post not below the rank of
Medical Officer, class II.”
6.4. A perusal of the relevant portion of the recruitment rules
envisages that while a candidate should possess a bachelors
degree in Medicine and a postgraduate degree in Medicine
etc., insofar as the experience criteria is concerned, the
candidate is required to have a minimum 5 years Public
Health experience as ‘Medical Officer, Class-II’ in government
service. The petitioner being in government service, while
Page 9 of 22
Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Wed Sep 09 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 22:43:42 IST 2026
C/SCA/13043/2026 (GJHC240685002026) JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2026
there are other services also envisaged, but, this Court is not
required to refer to the other categories. It would appear in
this regard that the petitioner has been working as a Medical
Officer, Class-II in government service and whereas, while
experience criteria also envisages experience gained on other
posts, yet, the underlying feature being that the posts are
such which could be considered as ‘equivalent to the post, not
below the rank of Medical Officer, Class-II’. It would also be
clear that the recruitment rule prima facie not envisaging that
the candidate should have the requisite experience after
obtaining the educational qualifications.
6.5. Now, coming to the advertisement and the Classification
Rules, the advertisement basically is a reproduction of the
Classification Rules and whereas Rule 8(8)(a & b) of the
Gujarat Civil Services Classification and Recruitment
(General) Rules, 1967 being relevant for the present purpose,
are reproduced hereinbelow for benefit:-
“8. Condition as to Prescribed qualifications :-
(8) Where the qualifications prescribed for any
service or post include a qualification as to
practical experience of a given period and
applications are invited for such service or post
“the period of practical experience shall be
Page 10 of 22
Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Wed Sep 09 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 22:43:42 IST 2026
C/SCA/13043/2026 (GJHC240685002026) JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2026
computed-
(a) Unless otherwise provided in recruitment rule
from the date on which requisite qualifications are
obtained.
(b) With reference to the last date fixed for receipt
of such application.”
6.6. A perusal of the said rule inter alia envisages that when
a qualification as to practical experience for a given period is
prescribed in an advertisement for a post, except for the
recruitment rule providing otherwise, the experience would
be counted from the date of obtaining requisite qualification
and the last reference date would be the last date fixed for
receipt of application in the advertisement. The question to be
answered would be that whether reading the Classification
Rules in conjunction with the Recruitment Rules would the
requirement of experience is required to be counted from the
date of obtaining the postgraduate degree or not.
6.7. To this Court, it would appear that the Classification
Rules are very clear in this regard. The Classification Rules
very specifically state ‘unless otherwise provided in the
recruitment rule’. The said clarification clearly goes against
the contention raised by the respondent inasmuch as the
Page 11 of 22
Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Wed Sep 09 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 22:43:42 IST 2026
C/SCA/13043/2026 (GJHC240685002026) JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2026
recruitment rules require the experience of 5 years of a
candidate as Medical Officer, Class-II without any reference
whatsoever to the experience after having obtained the post
graduation degree. To this Court, it would appear that when
the recruitment rule requires the experience to be obtaining
in a particular post, then the recruiting body or even the State
Government could not be heard to contend that though the
post in question did not envisage the higher educational
qualification, yet, the candidate should have the higher
qualification before counting of the experience would begun.
6.8. In perspective of the fact situation, it would appear that
while the educational qualification required for the post of
Medical Officer, Class-II was a Bachelor of Medicine etc.,
which the petitioner had when he was appointed on the said
post, the State Government or the GPSC could not be heard to
contend that the period of experience would be counted only
after the petitioner had obtained a postgraduate degree in
Medicine etc. The reason for such an observation since the
recruitment rules clearly specify the experience on a
particular post without any reference to the higher
qualification. The Classification Rule clearly saying that the
Page 12 of 22
Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Wed Sep 09 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 22:43:42 IST 2026
C/SCA/13043/2026 (GJHC240685002026) JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2026
Classification Rule would come into play only if there is no
specification mentioned in the Recruitment Rule and the
Recruitment Rule as noticed hereinabove clearly stating that
the experience would be on a particular post, the respondent
GPSC would not be justified in contending that though the
educational qualification of the post in which the experience is
required would be only a Bachelors Degree, yet, the period of
experience would be counted only after the candidate obtains
a higher educational qualification, which was not required
qualification for the post on which the experience was
counted. To this Court, it would appear that such a contention
could not be permissible on a fair and equitable
interpretation of the recruitment rule read with Classification
Rule.
6.9. The position would get further clear when one
appreciates that the recruitment rule is also very clear in its
scope and ambit as regards the experience criteria inasmuch
as the experience criteria primarily requires a candidate to
have 5 years experience in public health as Medical Officer,
Class-II in the government or on any other post in government
undertaking etc. which post can be considered equivalent and
Page 13 of 22
Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Wed Sep 09 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 22:43:42 IST 2026
C/SCA/13043/2026 (GJHC240685002026) JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2026
not below the rank of Medical Officer, Class-II. It would thus
appear that the underlying object of the recruitment rule
insofar as the criteria of experience is concerned, being that
the candidate should have 5 years experience as Medical
Officer, Class-II in government service or on a post which
could be considered equivalent or not below the rank of
Medical Officer, Class-II in government service. As noticed,
the post of Medical Officer, Class-II requires a candidate to
have M.B.B.S. Degree, the facts speaking for itself since the
petitioner having qualification of M.B.B.S. had applied and
was selected to the post of Medical Officer, Class-II since the
year 2016. Thus, it would appear that the recruitment rule
would fall under the exception provided in the Classification
Rules i.e. the Classification Rules would come into play only if
there is no particular provision provided in the recruitment
rule as regards the experience. In the instant case, as
observed hereinabove, it requires a candidate to have
experience as Medical Officer, Class-II or an equivalent post,
under such circumstances, the experience criteria could not
be understood to mean that the same would be counted only
after the period when the candidate gained experience which
was higher than the qualification required for the post on
Page 14 of 22
Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Wed Sep 09 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 22:43:42 IST 2026
C/SCA/13043/2026 (GJHC240685002026) JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2026
which the experience was mandatory.
7. As far as the reliance by the learned Counsel for the
respondent on decision of the learned Coordinate Bench in
Special Civil Application No.3715/2025, it would appear that
the recruitment rule inter alia required experience not on a
specific post, but, on two different posts and whereas, to this
Court, it would appear that the recruitment rule in the
present case and the recruitment rule in case relied upon by
learned Counsel being different and distinct, the observations
of the learned Coordinate Bench would not advance the cause
of the present petitioner any further.
7.1. At this stage, it would be apposite to mention that order
of the learned Coordinate Bench has also been upheld by the
Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in case of Kaizad
Mehernosh Dastoor vs. Chairman, Gujarat Public
Service Commission, reported on 2025 (3) GLH 117. The
Hon’ble Division Bench had noticed the recruitment rule and
the relevant experience criteria in the said recruitment rule
i.e. Clause 3(c) of the recruitment rule for the post of Chief
Fire Officer, being relevant for the present purpose, is
reproduced hereinbelow:-
Page 15 of 22
Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Wed Sep 09 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 22:43:42 IST 2026
C/SCA/13043/2026 (GJHC240685002026) JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2026
“3(c) have at least seven years' service experience
in a whole time in the Field of Fire Brigade out of
which three years' experience on the post which
can be considered equivalent to the post not below
rank of Station Officer or Assistant Divisional
Officer in Government or Local body or
Government Undertaking Board or Corporation of
Limited Company established under the Companies
Act, 2013”
7.2. As could be noticed, the experience required was a
composite experience of 7 years of which the 3 years was on a
post which could be equivalent and not below the rank of
Station Officer or Assistant Divisional Officer in government
or local body. While it was attempted to be submitted before
the Hon’ble Division Bench that the criteria had to be
bifurcated, the Hon’ble Division Bench had not countenanced
the same as the same was not found to be the intent of the
rule making authority on a plain reading of the rules.
Paragraph no.18 of the said decision being relevant for the
present purpose, is reproduced hereinbelow for benefit:-
“18. The requirement of seven years’ experience
though is composite has exclusive feature of three
years’ experience in the Fire Brigade on the post,
which can be considered equivalent to the post not
below the rank of Station Officer. Thus, out of total
seven years’ experience in Fire Brigade, three years
should be on the respective. The appellant has
attempted to bifurcate it into two parts of 4 years and
3 years, but the language of Rule 3(c) does not
envisage this feature. It only commands of distinct
Page 16 of 22
Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Wed Sep 09 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 22:43:42 IST 2026
C/SCA/13043/2026 (GJHC240685002026) JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2026
experience of three years on a post in Fire Brigade. If
the Rule making authority had the intention to
include the experience gained before acquiring the
educational qualification as required under Rule 3(b)
(i), the same could have formed the part of Rule 3.
There is no positive covenant permitting the inclusion
of experience prior to attaining the qualification in
the entire Rule 3, hence the contention of the
appellant about bifurcation of experience in Rule 3
does not merit acceptance.”
7.3. Thus, it would appear that unlike in the present case,
where a specific experience was required for a specific post,
which had lower qualifications than the requirement of the
post in question for which the advertisement is issued, the
recruitment rule in the case before the Hon’ble Division
Bench confirming the decision of the learned Coordinate
Bench, was completely different.
7.4. It also appears that the Hon’ble Division Bench had
relied upon decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of
Indian Airlines Limited and Ors. vs. S. Gopalakrishnan,
reported in 2001 (2) SCC 362 and whereas, while paragraph
no.5 of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court had been relied
upon by the Hon’ble Division Bench, in the case of hand
before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the recruitment rules
clearly provided that ‘experience will be computed after the
Page 17 of 22
Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Wed Sep 09 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 22:43:42 IST 2026
C/SCA/13043/2026 (GJHC240685002026) JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2026
date of acquiring necessary qualifications’. Such a clear
mandate is not found in the present recruitment rules.
7.5. Furthermore, it would also be relevant to observe that
the learned Coordinate Bench had referred to decision of the
Hon’ble Division Bench in case of K.V.Garasiya vs. Babubhai
N. Gavit, reported in 1999 (1) GLR 229 and whereas, perusal
of the said decision clearly reveals that the candidate in
question did not have required experience as observed by the
Hon’ble Division Bench since the petitioner had graduated in
the year 1992 i.e. on 10.04.1992 whereas, the experience
required was of 5 years after the graduation, whereas, the last
date for the applications to be submitted to the recruiting
body was 01.04.1996. It is in such a context that the Hon’ble
Division Bench had invoked Rule 8(8) of the Classification
Rules which have been referred to hereinabove to hold that
the experience could be counted with reference to the last
date fixed for receipt of the application on which date
admittedly a candidate therein did not posses the requisite
qualification of 5 years.
7.6. Having analyzed the decision relied upon by the learned
Counsel for the respondent – GPSC and further having
Page 18 of 22
Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Wed Sep 09 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 22:43:42 IST 2026
C/SCA/13043/2026 (GJHC240685002026) JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2026
analyzed the decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench which has
confirmed the decision of the learned Coordinate Bench and
also the decisions which have been relied upon by both the
learned Coordinate Bench and the Hon’ble Division Bench,
this Court is of the considered opinion that the facts of the
case on hand are completely distinct and different than the
case on hand before the learned Coordinate Bench, Hon’ble
Division Bench as well as Hon’ble Apex Court. In the present
case, the experience requirement is with reference to a
particular post and whereas, in none of the cases, the
reference is only with regard to a single post. It would thus
appear that the intent of the rule making authority in the
instant case reflected the intention of prescribing experience
criteria gained on a particular post without any reference to
gaining such experience on that particular post after gaining
an educational qualification higher than what was the
requirement for the post in which the experience was to be
gained. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, the
decisions relied upon and referred to in the relied upon
decision as well as in the decision confirming the relied upon
decision, would not advance the cause of the petitioner.
Page 19 of 22
Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Wed Sep 09 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 22:43:42 IST 2026
C/SCA/13043/2026 (GJHC240685002026) JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2026
8. Again, to this Court, it would appear that if the
recruitment rules only specified a requirement of 5 years
experience in public health then the respondent would have
been well justified in stating that the said experience
qualification would only be counted after a candidate had
obtained a postgraduate degree. On the other hand, since the
recruitment rules clearly specify experience gained in a
particular post and the said post not envisaging a
postgraduate degree as a required qualification, the
respondent – GPSC would not be heard to state that even
though the petitioner has requisite qualification as a Medical
Officer, yet, since he did not have a qualification which was
not necessary for the post in question, therefore, the
experience of the petitioner would not be counted.
8.1. On the other hand, the GPSC would also have been well
justified in ousting the present petitioner if the recruitment
rule inter alia laid down that the 5 years public health
experience as Medical Officer, Class-II in the Government
after the candidate has obtained a postgraduate degree or
diploma in Public Health etc. whereas, the same also is not
the case here. Thus, it would appear that the GPSC i.e. the
Page 20 of 22
Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Wed Sep 09 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 22:43:42 IST 2026
C/SCA/13043/2026 (GJHC240685002026) JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2026
recruitment body is attempting to read a requirement which is
not found in the recruitment rules at all. The recruitment
rules specifying that the candidate should have 5 years
experience on the post of Medical Officer, Class-II, the same
could not be permitted to be deviated.
9. Considering the observations, discussion and
conclusions arrived at, to this Court, the following directions
would meet with the ends of justice:-
(i) The impugned action on the part of the respondent in
excluding the present petitioner from interview to the post of
Medical Officer of Health, Class-I is declared bad in law and
illegal.
(ii) The respondent – GPSC is directed to ensure that while
conducting the interview for the post in question, the
petitioner is also included in the list of candidates eligible for
appearing in the interview.
10. With the above directions, the present petition stands
disposed of as allowed. Direct service is permitted.
11. At this stage, learned advocate Mr.Joshi submits that the
present judgment may be stayed for a period of two weeks to
Page 21 of 22
Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Wed Sep 09 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 22:43:42 IST 2026
C/SCA/13043/2026 (GJHC240685002026) JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2026
enable the respondent to assail the same before the Hon’ble
Division Bench. The said request is vehemently opposed by
learned advocate Mr.Raval, more particularly, contending that
the interviews are scheduled on 11.09.2026 and whereas,
under such circumstances, staying the decision would render
the entire exercise infructuous. Considering the submission
made by learned advocate Mr.Raval, the request made by
learned advocate Mr.Joshi for the respondent is rejected.
(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J)
Bhoomi
Page 22 of 22
Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Wed Sep 09 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 22:43:42 IST 2026