Respected Sir,

Here I am conveying some facts which pointed out by Bhumijaba in Gujarati and you
asked her to translate the same into english and mail you. Hence, I had translated
the matter and mailing you the same.
Facts:

As per Advertisement, vacancies in the post of RFO and ACF is given

in the table below:
Name of the Post
Total Vacancy
General
SEBC
SC
ST
General Female
SEBC Female
SC Female
ST Female
ACF
47
24
13
03
07
8
04
01
02
RFO
120
60
35
06
19
18
11
01
06
Total

167
84
48
09
26
26
15
02
08
Note: Seat shown for the Female was 30% of the total seats available in
different categories.

Now, as per Hon. High Court Order GPSC had send a list of
successful candidates who had secure more than 429 marks as a whole
in the Result dated 25.09.2014.

In that list total 5 candidates (Merit No: 22, 32, 37, 40 and 43)
who have secured post of RFO in General Category. Now, if they utilised
their right for Better Preference (In view of Supreme Court
Judgement in Case of Ramesh Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan) they
could secure post of ACF in their own category (i.e. SEBC Category)
and they have done the same.

Due to that, 5 candidates from the Reserved SEBC Category

should be removed from the bottom of the list of Reserved SEBC
Category Candidates and top 5 new candidates from the merit list of
unsuccessful candidates should be included in the list of successful
candidates. The same was not done by the GPSC yet as shown in the
table below:
Candidates
General Category
SEBC Category
Post As per Advertisement
Post Actual Filled
Post As per Advertisement
Post Actual Filled
MALE
58
53
33
38

FEMALE
26
24
15
17
TOTAL
84
77
48
55
Our Concern:

Out of above said 5 SEBC Category candidates, 2 were female

and as they have opted Better Preference and to get selected as ACF in their
own category (instead of as RFO in General Category) they have to vacant
the seats in General Female Category. Hence, on those two seats both
Bhavnaba Balvantsinh Sarvaiya and Bhumija Manuji Chavda may got
selected.

The above said issue should be bought to the notice of the

court and our argument should be accordingly.
Regards,
Mayurdhvajsinh Jadeja.