IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17666 of 2025 ========================================================== KANTIBHAI RAMESHBHAI PANDOR Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. ========================================================== Appearance: NIYATI V VAISHNAV(6168) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR ADITYA DAVDA AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI Date : 30/01/2026 ORAL ORDER 1. Heard learned advocate Ms. Niyati Vaishnav for the petitioner, learned advocate Mr. H.S. Munshaw for respondent No.2, and learned AGP Mr. Aditya Davda for the State. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: (A) direct respondent authorities to reconsider the case of the petitioner for the appointment on the post of conductor by quashing and setting aside the office order dated 13.10.2025 rejecting the candidature of the petitioner; (B) direct the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner on mercy ground being needy and disabled person by showing liberal approach and grant p. 2 him one opportunity to serve and earn his livelihood if there is still any vacancy; (C) Award the cost of the petition, and (D) Grant any other relief or pass any other order which the Honourable Court may consider as just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is suffering from disability of one leg (OL), whereas, while filling up the application form, the disability was somehow mentioned as HH (Hard of Hearing). On that ground, according to the petitioner, his candidature was rejected, which has led to filing of the present petition. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Munshaw appearing for GSRTC has filed a reply. In paragraph 10 thereof, the following averments are made: “The Respondent No.2 submits that as stated herein above in all 92 posts were to be filled up through candidates having physical disabilities. It is stated that the physical disability of 'hard of hearing' falls in Category-B and the last available candidate has secured 7.75% of marks. It is stated that the physical disability of Locomotor falls in Category-C and the last candidate has secured 51.50 marks. It is stated that as per the p. 3 Medical Certificate indicating Locomotor disability, the case of the petitioner falls in Category-C and as the petitioner has secured just 16 marks, he is not eligible for selection and appointment on that ground.” 5. The above averments, made on oath by the Chief Personnel Officer, GSRTC, Ahmedabad, clearly indicate that the petitioner has secured only 16 marks, whereas the last selected candidate from Category-C (Locomotor Disability) has secured 51.50 marks, which is far higher than the marks obtained by the petitioner. Therefore, even if the petitioner's case is considered in the category of locomotor disability, instead of hard of hearing, the petitioner would still not fall within the zone of consideration on merits as stated by learned advocate Mr.Munshaw. In view of that, no further order is required as the petitioner has secured just 16 marks and he is far below than the last candidate who is in the select list. 6. In view of the above, no further order is required. The petition is required to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. (NIRZAR S. DESAI,J) BHAVIN MEHTA