Court sets aside decision, deems procedural lapse not fraud. Candidate relief granted, rule made absolute.

The Court allowed the petition, setting aside the Gujarat Public Service Commission's decision to treat the petitioner as ineligible. The Court concluded that the non-production of the S.S.C.E. certificate was a procedural lapse, not a fraudulent act, and the subsequent submission of the certificate cured the defect. Emphasizing that procedural irregularities should not disqualify eligible candidates, the Court found the GPSC's actions unreasonable and arbitrary, granting the petitioner relief and making the rule absolute.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility of the petitioner based on the submission of the S.S.C.E. credit certificate.
2. Procedural irregularity versus illegality in the submission process.
3. Discrimination in the treatment of candidates by the Gujarat Public Service Commission (GPSC).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Eligibility of the petitioner based on the submission of the S.S.C.E. credit certificate:
The petitioner was declared ineligible by the respondent, Gujarat Public Service Commission (GPSC), on the grounds that the S.S.C.E. credit certificate was not produced. The petitioner contended that the certificate was sent along with the application via Registered A.D. Post and was possibly misplaced by the GPSC. The petitioner promptly made a representation and submitted another attested copy of the certificate. The Court noted that the petitioner did have the S.S.C.E. certificate at the material time and that the application form was sent online. The non-production of the certificate was considered a procedural lapse rather than a fraudulent or misrepresentative act. The Court concluded that the petitioner should not be treated as ineligible due to this procedural lapse, especially since the certificate was produced later.

2. Procedural irregularity versus illegality in the submission process:
The Court differentiated between illegality and irregularity. Illegality denotes a substantial failure in compliance, altering the party's rights or obligations, and is a complete defect in jurisdiction or proceedings. Irregularity, on the other hand, is a procedural lapse that does not amount to a substantial failure. The Court found that the petitioner's omission to send the S.S.C.E. certificate was a procedural irregularity, not an illegality. The petitioner’s subsequent production of the certificate cured the defect, and it was deemed a condonable lapse. The Court emphasized that procedural irregularities should not disentitle a candidate if they are otherwise eligible.

3. Discrimination in the treatment of candidates by the Gujarat Public Service Commission (GPSC):
The petitioner alleged discrimination, stating that other candidates who had similar issues were accommodated and declared eligible upon their representation. The petitioner highlighted that candidates for Class-I posts were granted the opportunity to produce their S.S.C.E. certificates even after being declared ineligible. The Court acknowledged this point, noting that the petitioner should have been granted a similar opportunity to rectify the procedural lapse. The respondents' failure to provide this opportunity was deemed unreasonable and arbitrary.

Conclusion:
The Court allowed the petition, setting aside the GPSC's decision to treat the petitioner as ineligible. The action of the GPSC was found to be procedurally irregular rather than illegal. The Court ruled that the petitioner should not be prejudiced due to the inadvertent non-sending of the certificate, which was later produced. The petition was allowed, and the rule was made absolute accordingly.

---