Gujarat HC Upholds GPSC's Disqualification in Fire Officer Recruitment : Experience Must Follow Qualification and No Rule Permits Counting Experience Gained Before Required Certification
Safiya Malik
The Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, comprising Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Gita Gopi, dismissed a Letters Patent Appeal challenging the disqualification of a candidate from recruitment for the post of Chief Fire Officer, Class-I in the Gandhinagar Municipal Corporation. The court upheld the interpretation that the mandatory seven years of experience must be counted only after the acquisition of the requisite Divisional Officer Course qualification.
The Division Bench, in its oral judgment dated April 21, 2025, held that "the entire seven years’ experience has to be counted after a candidate acquires the requisite qualification of completion of the Divisional Fire Officers Course." The appeal was filed against the earlier judgment of the Single Judge dated March 27, 2025, which had similarly dismissed the appellant’s writ petition.
The appellant had applied for the position of Chief Fire Officer pursuant to Advertisement No.10/2024-25 issued in July 2024 by the Gandhinagar Municipal Corporation. Following scrutiny, the Corporation declared him ineligible via a notice dated March 6, 2025, citing a shortfall in requisite experience. His representation challenging the rejection was dismissed on March 26, 2025, prompting the filing of the writ petition, which was rejected, and subsequently the present Letters Patent Appeal.
The appellant claimed he had more than the required seven years of experience, citing work in both private and public sector fire brigades. His legal representatives argued that while his post-qualification experience (after acquiring the Divisional Officer Certificate on April 17, 2017) totalled six years, nine months, and ten days, his additional prior experience of one year and nine months should also be considered.
They specifically submitted that "the deficit period can be borrowed from the experience rendered prior to the acquiring of the qualification," arguing a bifurcation of the seven-year requirement into a segment not requiring post-qualification credentials.
However, the respondents contended that per Rule 3(c) of the Chief Fire Officer, Class-I Recruitment Rules, 2024, and Rule 3(b)(i), only post-qualification experience was admissible. They cited General Instruction No.6(2)(a) of the Advertisement, which stated: "the experience shall be counted from the date, of acquiring the requisite educational qualification." Rule 8(8)(a) of the Gujarat Civil Services Classification and Recruitment (General) Rules, 1967, which is analogous to this provision, was also invoked.
Further, the respondents referred to a Supreme Court precedent in Indian Airlines Ltd. vs. S. Gopalakrishnan (2001) 2 SCC 362, which affirmed that experience qualifications must follow educational qualifications: "When in addition to qualification, experience is prescribed, it would only mean acquiring experience after obtaining the necessary qualification and not before."
The court observed that the appellant had completed his Divisional Officer Course on April 17, 2017, and that his experience post this date totalled 6 years, 9 months, and 10 days. The pre-qualification experience included:
- 9 months as Fire Officer at Vinod Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. (May 11, 2015 – February 15, 2016)
- 1 year at Arvind Limited (February 20, 2016 – February 19, 2017)
The court noted that the "appellant has attempted to bifurcate [the experience requirement] into two parts of 4 years and 3 years, but the language of Rule 3(c) does not envisage this feature." It observed that "there is no positive covenant permitting the inclusion of experience prior to attaining the qualification in the entire Rule 3."
The Division Bench further stated: "Neither the Rules nor the clauses of advertisement bifurcate 7 years’ experience i.e., prior to qualifications or thereafter." Thus, it concluded that "the experience gained by the appellant before procuring the necessary qualification cannot be considered."
The court relied on Rule 8(8)(a) of the 1967 Rules which states: "Unless otherwise provided in recruitment rule from the date on which requisite qualifications are obtained." It recorded that "even if there is no specific provision in the special rules framed for the recruitment to a post, the general rules shall prevail."
On the legal authority of the interpretation, the court cited S. Gopalkrishnan where the Supreme Court had recorded: "when this requirement was made very clear that he should have experience only after acquiring the qualification, the view taken by the High Court to the contrary does not stand to reason."
Upon an overall analysis of Rules 3(b)(i) and 3(c) of the Chief Fire Officer Rules, 2024, read in conjunction with Clause 6(2)(a) of the General Instructions provided in the Advertisement, The Court justifiable reason to depart from the view taken by the learned Single Judge
Accordingly, the Division Bench held that "the Letters Patent Appeal fails. The same is dismissed. The connected civil application also stands disposed of accordingly."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Appellant: G.M. Joshi, Senior Advocate with Bomi H. Sethna
For Respondents: Manan Mehta, Nikunt K. Raval
Case Title: Kaizad Mehernosh Dastoor vs. Chairman, Gujarat Public Service Commission & Anr.
Case Number: R/Letters Patent Appeal No. 552 of 2025 in R/Special Civil Application No. 3715 of 2025
Bench: Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Gita Gopi
[Read/Download order]
