PATEL ALPABEN AMBALAL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Mr. Anand L. Sharma learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service notice of Rule for respondents Nos.1 and 2 and Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned Advocate, waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent No.3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the respective parties, the petition is being heard and finally decided, today.

(2.) By way of this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner assails the action of respondent No.3 in not adhering to the policy of reservation of 30% of posts for women, formulated by the State Government, thereby depriving the petitioner of appointment as Vidya Sahayak under the said policy.

(3.) Briefly stated, the relevant facts of the case are that respondent No.3, District Primary Education Officer, Kheda District Education Committee, issued advertisement dated 21.12.2009, for recruitment of a total number of 141 Vidya Sahayaks. Out of these, seven vacancies were notified for candidates possessing the qualification of Certificate of Physical Education (C.P.Ed.). Out of the said seven vacancies, four vacancies were reserved for the Socially and Educationally Backward category (S.E.B.C.) and the remaining three posts were advertised for the Open/Unreserved Category. The petitioner, having passed the H.S.C. (Higher Secondary Certificate) and C.P.Ed. examinations, applied for appointment as Primary Teacher/Vidya Sahayak, being eligible and qualified for such appointment, in the Open/Unreserved Category. It is specifically stated in the said advertisement that 30% of the vacancies are reserved for women, as per policy decision of the State Government. The Government of Gujarat, vide Notification dated 09.04.1997, in exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, has framed Rules called the Gujarat Civil Services (Reservation of Posts for Women)Rules, 1997('the Rules' for short). As per Rule 2 of the Rules, 30% reservation is provided for women, in the posts meant for the Scheduled Caste (S.C.), Scheduled Tribe (S.T.), Socially and Educationally Backward (S.E.B. C.) and Open/Unreserved categories respectively. Pursuant to the application of the petitioner, she was issued Acknowledgment dated 01.01.2010. The petitioner was also issued interview call letter dated 20.03.2010, asking her to remain present on 30.03.2010. In the interview letter, the word "waiting" was written by hand, on the left hand top corner of communication dated 20.03.2010 and the words 'CPEd/W/1' was written at the bottom. As the petitioner was hopeful of being placed in the select -list of candidates in view of 30% reservation for women in the concerned category, she applied for information under the Right to Information Act, 2005('R.T.I. Act' for short) on 25.03.2010, to respondent No.3. The said respondent did not give any reply to the application of the petitioner. However, the petitioner remained present at the oral interview on 30.03.2010, and she was duly selected. Admittedly, there are no marks for the oral interview in the policy of recruitment and the recruitment is based on 100% objective criteria of marks obtained at the qualifying examinations. Thereafter, other candidates were given appointment in the months of March/April 2010 but the petitioner was not issued any appointment order. The petitioner, therefore, pursued the matter by seeking further information under the R.T.I. Act. Pursuant thereto, respondent No.3 issued letter dated 16.08.2010 inviting the petitioner for inspection of records and for obtaining copies of relevant documents. The petitioner was provided with a copy of the select - list and waiting -list of C.P.Ed. Candidates, as per Annexure -'G'. In the said list, in the category of the petition, namely Open/Unreserved Category, no woman has been selected and the petitioner has been placed in the waiting -list.