BHARATBHAI PUNABHAI CHAVDA Vs. MANOJKUMAR DHRANGA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent No.4 being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.4428 of 1996 has preferred this appeal. The brief facts leading to the present proceedings are required to be narrated, which are as follows: On 30.4.1996, an advertisement was published in the newspaper inviting applications for the post of a Teacher from qualified candidates as mentioned in the said advertisement. The Gujarat Secondary Education Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred as the Act) vide Chapter VI enacts the provisions relating to services in registered private secondary schools. Section 34 of the Act refers to recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed in registered private secondary schools. Section 35 of the Act refers to a Selection Committee for selection of staff. The relevant provision is given hereunder:

(2.) As said earlier about the applications being invited, original petitioner, respondent No.4 and others were interviewed. Original respondent No.3, the father-in-law of respondent No.4 was a member of the Selection Committee which interviewed all the candidates. After selection process, respondent No.3 vide Annexure-G requested D.E.O., the respondent No.1, to approve the selection.

(3.) The petitioner made a grievance before the learned Single Judge that the appointment of respondent No.4 as an Assistant Teacher in the subject of Physical Education in Gram Prathamik Shala/ Vinay Mandir was vitiated on the ground that the father-in-law of original respondent No.4 was a member of the selection committee. There is no dispute before us that the father-in-law of a selected candidate, the appellant herein, the original respondent No.3 in the petition, participated in the selection process. In view of this, it was contended that the selection being illegal and not in accordance with law, it must be quashed. So far as the relations between original respondent No.4 with original respondent No.3 are concerned, the same are also not in dispute.