Gujarat HC Dismisses GST Officer’s Plea Challenging Debarment By PSC From Appearing In Main Exam Due To Unruly Behaviour During Preliminary Exam
|The Gujarat High Court has recently dismissed a petition filed by a GST Officer challenging her debarment from appearing in Class-I officer’s main examination in view of her alleged misconduct with the invigilator and a lady police constable at an examination centre during the preliminary examination.
Considering the fact that the Petitioner was appearing in an examination for the post of Class-I officer, the High Court emphasized that it was expected of her to respect and comply with the instructions issued by the Gujarat Public Service Commission (GPSC).
The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Nirzar S. Desai held, “...I find that the misconduct, which is alleged against the present petitioner, is very serious in nature and the same is not expected from a person, who is appearing in the examination for Class-I officer.”
The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Vaibhav A Vyas while the Respondent Commission was represented by Advocate I G Joshi.
Factual Background:
The Petitioner in this case has been serving in the GST Department of the State. She had applied for the post of Gujarat Administrative Service Class-I, Gujarat Civil Service, Class – I & II and Gujarat State Municipal Chief Officers’ Service, Class-II, pursuant to the notification issued by the Respondent - GPSC. While appearing in the preliminary examination, the Petitioner did not hear the warning bell and mistook the final bell for the warning bell. She continued to write her answers and allegedly refused to hand over her sheet. It was alleged that she argued with the invigilator and also misbehaved with a lady Police Constable.
Thereafter, the Petitioner appeared before the Commission and tendered an unconditional, written apology. However, the Commission debarred her from appearing in the main examination. Hence, the Petitioner approached the High Court.
The Bench made it very clear that it was not about the Petitioner’s failure to hear the warning bell but it was about the overall behaviour and conduct of the Petitioner with the invigilator as well as the lady police constable that disturbed the Court to the core.
It was also noted that the scope of interference by the High Court, in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, was very limited when the finding of facts were recorded and the entire case of the Petitioner as well as the defence of the Petitioner were also based on the facts.
The Bench was of the view that the Petitioner could have stopped marking the answers on the OMR Sheet, once her attention was drawn by the invigilator and she could have handed over the same to the invigilator. However, she did not do so and instead, continued to mark the answers for about 5 to 7 minutes.
The High Court also discarded the plea to direct the Respondent Commission to conduct an inquiry as the admission of guilt on the part of the Petitioner would have rendered the same futile. In this case, the entire incident was recorded on the CCTVs installed at the examination hall and the Petitioner had already admitted her guilt. Thus, the Bench held that the Respondent Commission committed no error by not adhering to the prescribed procedure since, an inquiry is required to be conducted only when a person does not admit his or her guilt.
It was also noticed by the Bench that the Respondent Commission had neither informed the GST department about the alleged misconduct nor had lodged any complaint with police. Dismissing the petition, the Bench opined that the Commission’s lenient decision of debarring her from appearing in the main examination couldn’t be termed as unjust or unreasonable.
Accordingly, the Petition was dismissed.
Cause Title: Vaishali Gagjibhai Variya v. Gujarat Public Service Commission (Neutral Citation: 2024 GUJHC:58404)