VIRBHADRASINH PRABHATSINH GOHIL vs STATE OF GUJARAT

C/LPA/1034/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1034 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION/2714/2020
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1034 of 2025
==================================================
VIRBHADRASINH PRABHATSINH GOHIL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==================================================
Appearance :
MR VAIBHAV A VYAS(2896) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS. DHRUTI PANDYA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR JIGAR D DAVE(6528) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
MS ROOPAL R PATEL(1360) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==================================================
CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J. L. ODEDRA

Date : 24/06/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA)
[1] In the month of January 2019, an advertisement was
issued by the Gujarat Public Service Commission (GPSC) calling
for applications for the posts of Superintendent, Central Prison,
and Superintendent, Porbandar Special Prison, in the Gujarat
Jail Service, Class-I.
[2] The advertisement indicated that the candidates should
possess the following educational qualifications:-
Page 1 of 19
Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Fri Jul 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 18 03:07:27 IST 2026

C/LPA/1034/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2026
“(a) (i) possess a degree with first class of any of the
Universities established or incorporated by or under the
Central or a State Act in India or any other Educational
Institution recognised as such or declared to be deemed as a
University under section 3 of the University Grants Commission
Act, 1956 or possess an equivalent qualification recognised by
the Government; and”
[3] There was also a requirement of certain experience for the
applicants, but since the experience component is not the
subject matter of the dispute in these proceedings, the same has
not been extracted.
[4] As could be seen from the advertisement, the educational
qualification prescribed was that the candidate should possess a
degree with first class from any of the universities established
or incorporated by or under the Central or State Act.
[5] The emphasis in the advertisement was that the candidate
should possess a degree from any University. It may also be
pertinent to state here that the requirement of a degree in any
particular subject or that a degree which of any required a
particular year number of years of study was not prescribed
stipulated, thereby meaning any candidate who possessed any
Degree could apply.
[6] The recruitment to the aforementioned post is, in fact,
governed by the Rules framed under Section 59(10) and Section
Page 2 of 19
Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Fri Jul 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 18 03:07:27 IST 2026

C/LPA/1034/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2026
6 of the Prisons Act which are titled "Superintendent, Central
Prison and Superintendent Porbandar Special Prison Class-I
Recruitment Rules, 2016." Thus, the appointment to the
aforementioned post is governed by a set of statutory rules.
[7] Since we are concerned only with the educational
qualification prescribed for the post, the relevant extract of Rule
3, which relates to appointment by direct selection, would be
relevant and the same reads as under:
“3. To be eligible for appointment by direct selection to the
post mentioned in rule 2, a candidate shall,-
(a) not be less than 21 years of age and not be more than 42
years of age;
Provided that the upper age limit may be relaxed in favour of a
candidate who is belonging to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled
Tribes or Socially and Economically Backward Classes or
Women in accordance with the provisions of the Gujarat Civil
Services Classification and Recruitment (General) Rules, 1967:
Provided further that the upper age limit may be relaxed in
favour of a candidate who is already in the service of the
Government of Gujarat in accordance with the provisions of
Gujarat Civil Services Classification and Recruitment(General)
Rules, 1967;
Provided also that nothing contained in clause(b) of sub rule (9)
of rule 8 of the Gujarat Civil Services Classification and
Recruitment(General) Rules, 1967 shall be applicable in so far
as relaxation of upper age limit li as prescribed above is
concerned;
(b)
(i) possess a degree with first class of any of the Universities
established or incorporated by or under the Central or a State
Act in India or any other educational institution recognised as
such or declared to be deemed as a University under section 3
of the University Grants Commission Act 1955 or possess an
equivalent qualification recognised by the Government; and
Page 3 of 19
Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Fri Jul 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 18 03:07:27 IST 2026

C/LPA/1034/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2026
(ii) have about "seven years" experience of Superintendent of
District Jail, in the Gujarat Jail Service, Class II in the Jail
Department or have about seven years administrative
experience in Government or Government undertaking Board
or Corporation or Local Bodies or Limited company established
under the Companies Act, 2013 which can be considered
equivalent to the post not below the rank of Superintendent of
District Jail, in the Gujarat Jail Service, Class II' in the Jail
Department;
(c) have fulfill the requisite criteria of physical standards as
prescribed in Appendix "A" annexed to this rules;
(d) possess the basic knowledge of computer application as
prescribed in the Gujarat Civil Services Classification and
Recruitment (General) Rules, 1967;
(e) have passed the physical efficiency test as may be
prescribed by the Government;
(f) possess adequate knowledge of Gujarat or Hindi or
both.”
[8] Thus, the statutory Rule governing the appointment also
clearly state that the candidate should only possess a degree
with first class from any of the Universities established or
incorporated by or under a Central or State Act in India. In
other words, the educational qualification prescribed in the
advertisement was in conformity with the educational
requirement prescribed under the statutory Rule.
[9] The appellant herein was an applicant to the said post. He
possessed a Bachelor of Arts degree, which was awarded to him
in January 1995, and he was also the holder of a degree of
Bachelor of Education, which had been awarded to him in
March 2007. The appellant had secured a second class in the
Bachelor of Arts degree but had secured a first division in the
Bachelor of Education degree.
Page 4 of 19
Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Fri Jul 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 18 03:07:27 IST 2026

C/LPA/1034/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2026
[10] It was the case of the petitioner that since he possessed
not only a degree but also a Bachelor's degree in Education, he
was duly qualified to apply to the aforementioned post.
[11] Pursuant to the submission of the applications, a
preliminary examination was conducted in which the appellant
qualified, and he was also called for document verification.
However, thereafter , when the recruiting authority called upon
the candidates to appear for examination of their physical
standards, the appellant, was not called for the said
examination, thereby indicating that his candidature had been
rejected.
[12] As a consequence, the appellant approached this Court by
way of a writ petition, and in this writ petition, an interim order
was granted on 31.12.2020, by which the GPSC was directed to
permit the appellant to participate in the oral interview. This
Court also directed that the result of the appellant’s interview
be kept in a sealed cover.
[13] On 14.10.2021, the sealed cover was produced before the
Court, and upon opening the same, this Court found that the
appellant had secured the highest marks in the merit category.
Taking this fact into consideration, the Court directed that one
post out of the 5 posts advertised be kept reserved. We have
been informed that in compliance of this interim order, one post
Page 5 of 19
Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Fri Jul 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 18 03:07:27 IST 2026

C/LPA/1034/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2026
had indeed been kept vacant. The Court had also clarified that
the appellant would be permitted to participate in the interview
but could not claim any equity on that basis.
[14] However, ultimately, the learned Single Judge, after
hearing the appellant, the State, GPSC, and the other candidate,
has come to the conclusion that the appellant did not possess
the requisite educational qualifications and has dismissed the
writ petition.
[15] As a consequence, the appellant is before us by way of this
appeal.
[16] The recruitment rule as well as the notification, insofar as
it relates to educational qualification, has been extracted above.
As could be seen from this statutory rule, any candidate who
possesses a degree with first class from any of the universities
established or incorporated by or under the Central or State Act
would be eligible for appointment to the aforementioned post.
[17] It is not in dispute that the Indira Gandhi National Open
University has been created under a Central enactment, and it
is this University that had granted the appellant a Bachelor of
Education degree. It is, therefore, clear that the appellant did
possess a degree, and he had also obtained a first class in the
said degree, thereby making him eligible to apply.
Page 6 of 19
Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Fri Jul 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 18 03:07:27 IST 2026

C/LPA/1034/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2026
[18] The respondents, including the State, however, have taken
up the contention that the rule had been amended on
06.08.2019 requiring the candidates to possess a Bachelor's
degree, and this amendment would also apply to the appellant,
even though the advertisement had been issued in January,
2019. The State also took up the contention that because of the
use of the specific word "Bachelor's degree," the Bachelor of
Education degree obtained by the appellant would be of no
consequence. The State contended that the Bachelor's degree in
Arts obtained by the appellant did not qualify him to apply for
the post since he had only secured only a second class therein.
[19] Ms. Dhruti Pandya, learned Assistant Government Pleader
also contended before us that, ultimately, in the matters of
recruitment, it is for the recruiting authority to determine
whether a candidate possesses the requisite educational
qualification or not, and this question cannot, therefore, be gone
into, as has been rightly held by the learned Single Judge.
[20] Learned Assistant Government Pleader also put forth an
argument that the Bachelor of Education degree obtained by the
appellant would not satisfy the meaning of a degree, as it was a
second degree and essentially a professional degree, which did
not satisfy the requirement of the rule. She contended, in
substance, that the Bachelor of Education degree was a second
degree, and in order to secure this second degree, the
requirement of a first degree was necessary, and in the first
degree, the appellant had not secured a first class.
Page 7 of 19
Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Fri Jul 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 18 03:07:27 IST 2026

C/LPA/1034/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2026
[21] This argument of the State is also supported by the
nd
learned counsel appearing for the 2 respondent as well as by
the GPSC. The learned Assistant Government Pleader placed
strong reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of Indresh Kumar Mishra and others
versus The State of Jharkhand and others passed in Civil
Appeal No(s).2217-2218 of 2022 and also a decision
rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of
Brijeshkumar Dasharathlal Patel versus Chairman and
others passed in Special Civil Application No.16694 of
2017 and connected matters. She also contended that the
judgments relied upon by the learned Single Judge in the
impugned order would aptly apply to the facts of the present
case and may also be taken into consideration.
nd
[22] Learned counsel for the 2 respondent placed reliance on
the judgment rendered in by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case
of Devender Bhaskar and others versus State of Haryana
and others passed in Civil Appeal No.7031 of 2021 .
[23] Learned advocate appearing for the GPSC submitted that
the rule as amended in August, 2019 was not challenged and,
therefore, the appellant was obliged to satisfy the said rule. She
also submitted that the State had not acted in an arbitrary
manner, and had, in fact, sought for the opinion of the experts
on the question of whether the Bachelor of Education degree
obtained by the appellant satisfied the requirement of a
Page 8 of 19
Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Fri Jul 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 18 03:07:27 IST 2026

C/LPA/1034/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2026
Bachelor's degree. According to her, the experts had opined
that the said qualification was inadequate.
[24] Mr. Vaibhav A. Vyas, learned counsel for the appellant, on
the other hand, contended that since the rule only required a
candidate to possess any degree granted by any University
which had been established under a statute, the appellant was
duly qualified. He submitted that the recruiting authority could
not amend the rules and incorporate the requirement of a
particular degree or a degree of a particular number of years of
study or a degree in a particular subject. He submitted that
since the post of Superintendent of Prisons did not require any
special education and the rule therefore deliberately provided
that any degree would suffice for appointment to the said port.
He, therefore, submitted that the arguments advanced by the
respondents were basically an attempt to overcome or amend
the rule and thereby dislodge the appellant, notwithstanding the
fact that he had secured first rank in the merit list.
[25] In the light of the above submissions, the principal
question that would arise for consideration in this appeal is
whether the learned Single Judge was justified in coming to the
conclusion that the appellant did not possess the requisite
educational qualifications as prescribed under the Rules.
[26] At the outset, an argument being advanced by the learned
Assistant Government Pleader regarding the amendment made
to the Rules in the month of August, 2019 will have to be
Page 9 of 19
Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Fri Jul 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 18 03:07:27 IST 2026

C/LPA/1034/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2026
considered. As stated above, the Rule that was prevailing on the
date of the notification in January, 2019 merely provided that
the candidate should possess any degree which had been
granted by any university established under either a State Act
or a Central Act. The Rule, as it stood on the date of the
advertisement, did not prescribe the requirement of any
particular degree.
[27] However, nearly seven months after the advertisement,
the Rule was amended, and the term "possess a Bachelor's
degree," instead of the term "possess a degree," was
substituted. It must be stated here that while amending the
Rule, the rule-making authority did not specify that the
amendment would operate retrospectively. It is settled law that
unless a Rule is expressly made retrospective, it cannot be
argued that the Rule operates retrospectively.
[28] It is to be stated here since there was a Rule specifying
the educational qualification was prevailing on the date of the
advertisement, necessarily, the recruitment will have to be done
in accordance with the Rule that prevailed as on the date of the
advertisement. This is basically because if there is any
alteration in the educational qualifications after the publication
of the advertisement that would prejudice the applicants and
non-suit them and that it would essentially violate the long
accepted principle laid down by various judgments of Hon’ble
Supreme Court about “shifting the goalposts after the game has
begun”.
Page 10 of 19
Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Fri Jul 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 18 03:07:27 IST 2026

C/LPA/1034/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2026
[29] Once a recruitment process commences, i.e., on the
issuance of an advertisement notification, the recruiting
authority is bound by the terms of the recruitment that had
been set forth in the advertisement. This aspect would apply
with a greater rigor when the advertisement conforms to the
educational qualification prescribed statutory Rules that have
been framed for the advertised post.
[30] A subsequent amendment to the statutory rule would have
absolutely no effect on the advertisement that has already been
published, and it would not have the effect of altering the
educational qualification. It is beyond doubt that the
requirement of a rule as on the date of the notification calling
for applications would prevail and not the requirements of an
amendment which has been made to the rule thereafter. We are
constrained to make this clarification, though is a settled
proposition of law, only because of the arguments advanced by
the State. We are of the view that the State ought not have even
put forth this kind of submission in the light of the settled
position of law.
[31] Now, dwelling on the merits of the case, as already
noticed above, the appellant did possess a degree granted to
him by the Indira Gandhi Open University, which is admittedly a
university established under a Central enactment, and he
therefore was duly qualified to be appointed for the advertised
post.
Page 11 of 19
Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Fri Jul 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 18 03:07:27 IST 2026

C/LPA/1034/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2026
[32] At this stage, it would also be necessary to note that the
degree awarded by the Indira Gandhi Open University
specifically states that the University was granting the degree of
Bachelor of Education. For the purpose of clarity, the entire
degree certificate is extracted below:-
Page 12 of 19
Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Fri Jul 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 18 03:07:27 IST 2026

C/LPA/1034/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2026
[33] As could be seen from the above degree certificate, it is
clearly stated by the University that the appellant has been
awarded a degree of Bachelor of Education. In our view, the use
of the term "Bachelor" and the use of the term “Degree”, read
conjunctively and in the right context, would fundamentally
mean that the appellant did possess a Bachelor's degree in
education. This would thus satisfy even the requirement of the
amendment made to the Rules after the advertisement had been
published.
[34] Basically, since the appellant possessed a degree which
had been granted to him by a university established under a
Central enactment, his educational qualification satisfied the
recruitment rule, and it cannot be argued that he was not
qualified. Since the appellant had been awarded a degree of
Bachelor of Education, he also possessed a Bachelor’s Degree,
which was the requirement of the subsequently amended Rule.
The appellant, thus, stood qualified both as per the Rule which
prevailed on the date of the advertisement and also the
amendment made to it subsequently.
[35] In our view, the attempt made by the State to contend that
the degree of degree of Bachelor of Education awarded to the
appellant did not satisfy the meaning of a degree or a Bachelor's
degree is thoroughly misconceived. As already noticed above,
the Rule only required that the candidate should possess a
Page 13 of 19
Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Fri Jul 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 18 03:07:27 IST 2026

C/LPA/1034/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2026
degree, and it did not specify the nature of the degree or the
subject in which the degree was to be secured.
[36] We may also keep in mind that the recruitment Rules not
only prescribed the educational qualifications but also specified
a work experience which was actually relevant to the post that
had been advertised. If the second part of Rule 3, which
prescribes the work experience, is taken into consideration, the
Rules fundamentally wanted a candidate to possess a formal
degree and, more importantly, should have had the requisite
work experience. Only a candidate possessing both
qualifications would become eligible. If the rule is viewed from
this context, the argument of the State that a of Bachelor of
Education degree was absolutely essential is definitely
misconceived.
[37] The learned Single Judge has dealt with the matter on the
assumption that a Bachelor of Education degree is not a
professional degree and is an academic qualification and,
therefore, did not satisfy the requirement of the Rule. A plain
reading of the Rule makes it crystal clear that the only
educational qualification required was a Degree granted by any
University that had been established either under a State Act or
A Central Act.
[38] The concept that a Degree in Arts or Science or Commerce
are the only professional degrees and are the only acceptable
Page 14 of 19
Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Fri Jul 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 18 03:07:27 IST 2026

C/LPA/1034/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2026
educational qualifications would be rewriting the Rule and
thereby amending the Rule. It is settled law that if a plain
reading of the Rule yielded a clear meaning, there should be no
attempt to interpret it on the assumption that it was ambiguous.
In this case, the Rule was clear and simple, and it was that a
person appointed to the post should have a Degree granted to
him by any University which had been established under a State
Act or a Central Act. A Rule which had absolute clarity could not
be distorted by way of an interpretation to give a completely
different meaning and defeating the real meaning of the Rule.
[39] The artificial distinction sought be given by the learned
single judge that there is something called a professional degree
and thereby meaning that there is also something called a non-
professional degree is wrong. If, a University established under
an enactment is empowered to prescribe curriculum and a
course of study and on its completion, if it is empowered to
grant various degrees, it is not open for the Courts to bring in
different non-existent concepts of a degree.
[40] The view of the learned single judge that a Bachelor of
Education is not a degree but only an academic qualification is
absolutely incorrect. The grant of a degree lies within the
exclusive domain of a University which is established under a
law and if that University says that it has granted a degree, it is
neither for the Courts not for the recruiting authorities to hold
that it is not a Degree. In law, it is for the University to define a
Page 15 of 19
Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Fri Jul 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 18 03:07:27 IST 2026

C/LPA/1034/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2026
Degree and it is for it to grant a Degree. No other entity,
including the Courts have the power to determine whether a
Degree granted by a duly established University is a degree or
not.
[41] No matter from which angle the rule is read, one cannot
infer that it required the possession of a professional degree. It
was not even the contemplation of the Rule of any such thing as
a professional degree was needed. In fact, the learned Single
Judge has created an artificial requirement that there are two
kinds of degrees i.e., a professional degree and a non-
professional degree, which is wholly improper. The view of the
learned single judge that a degree of Bachelor of Education is
not a degree but only an academic qualification is wholly
untenable and basically derides the degree granted by the
University which has been established by a law and conferred
the power to grant Degrees.
[42] It is settled law that it is not for the Courts to determine
what is the educational qualification that is to be prescribed by
the recruiting authority. The citations relied upon in this regard
need not be referred to since the Court is not determining what
would be the educational qualifications needed and it is only
ascertaining whether the educational qualification prescribed by
the rule is satisfied. In fact, the learned single judge has made
an attempt to prescribe the educational qualifications by stating
that there were professional and non-professional degrees and
Page 16 of 19
Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Fri Jul 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 18 03:07:27 IST 2026

C/LPA/1034/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2026
also resorted tom undermine a degree granted by an University
be only an academic qualification.
[43] The learned single Judge has basically misdirected himself
in coming to the conclusion that a Bachelor of Education degree
would not satisfy the Rule. As already noticed, the Rule is simple
and clear inasmuch as it only required that the appellant
possess a degree which has been granted to him by any
university established under a State or a Central enactment. In
the light of this clear and simple Rule, it was not open either to
the State or to the learned Single Judge to adorn this
qualification with further requirements. So long as the
recruitment Rule was satisfied, the authorities were bound to
accept the candidature of the appellant.
[44] In our view, the attempt made by the State to bring in the
factum of a Bachelor's degree or to contend that the Bachelor of
Education degree was a second degree obtained after securing
a first degree and, therefore, did not satisfy the recruitment
Rule, is nothing but an attempt to amend the very recruitment
Rule and also to add words thereto.
[45] In our opinion, the argument of the learned advocate
appearing for the GPSC regarding the non-challenge to the Rule
is concerned, the same is absolutely without any merit. As
noticed above, the Rule was amended eight months after the
notification, after the advertisement was issued, and therefore,
Page 17 of 19
Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Fri Jul 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 18 03:07:27 IST 2026

C/LPA/1034/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2026
there was no need for the appellant to have challenged the said
Rule, fundamentally because his candidature would obviously
have to be considered in light of the Rule that prevailed on the
date of the advertisement, i.e., in January 2019.
[46] As far as the argument that the State had secured the
opinion of the experts who had opined that the degree of
Bachelor of Education did not satisfy the definition of a
Bachelor's degree is concerned, the opinion of the experts
would become relevant only in the event of a candidate claiming
equivalence in the educational qualifications. If the Rule clearly
stated that all that was required was a degree, there was
absolutely no need to seek an expert opinion. The opinion
granted by the experts cannot result in diluting, amending, or
repealing a particular Rule. In fact, this attempt by the State to
secure the opinion of the expert bodies is nothing but an
attempt to get over the Rule that was prevailing.
[47] As already noticed hereinabove, the law is well settled that
recruitment to a particular post is to be governed strictly by the
statutory Rule that has been framed. It is only in cases where
the Rule requires examination of the equivalence of educational
qualifications that the opinion of an expert body or the view of
the employer would be relevant. If, as in the instant case, the
Rule clearly stated that the requirement of a degree granted by
a university established under a State or a Central Act was
adequate, the question of adding words to or interpreting this
Page 18 of 19
Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Fri Jul 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 18 03:07:27 IST 2026

C/LPA/1034/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2026
kind of simple Rule would not arise. We are, therefore, of the
view that the order of the learned Single Judge cannot be
sustained, and the same is accordingly set aside.
[48] Since it is not in dispute that the appellant was permitted
to participate in the oral interview, and it has been found by this
Court that he secured the first rank in merit category, and also
taking into consideration that one post was directed to be kept
vacant by virtue of an interim order, we direct the respondents
to issue an appointment order in favour of the appellant with a
period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this
order.
[59] The writ appeal is, therefore, allowed.
[50] All pending applications stand consigned to records.
[51] In light of the order that we have passed, any action taken
pursuant to the order of the learned single Judge, insofar as the
appellant is concerned, shall stand quashed.
(N.S.SANJAY GOWDA, J.)
(J. L. ODEDRA, J.)
DHARMENDRA KUMAR
Page 19 of 19
Uploaded by DHARMENDRA KUMAR(HC01071) on Fri Jul 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 18 03:07:27 IST 2026