DIRECTOR OF HIGHER EDUCATION Vs. ISHWARBHAI M VAGHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition filed by the petitioner ? Director of Higher Education [for short 'DHE'], under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 15/7/1993 passed by the Gujarat Affiliated Colleges Services Tribunal [for short 'the Tribunal'], whereby the order cancelling the appointment of the respondent no. 1 as 'Peon' is quashed and set aside.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this petition is that the respondent college intended to fill in the post of Peon as well as post of Sweeper and for said purpose, after obtaining N O C for filling the posts, advertisement was issued. In the advertisement, two posts were advertised, one was that of a Peon and another was that of a Sweeper. The post of Peon was specified as reserved for Scheduled Tribe [ST] and post of Sweeper was kept open for unreserved category of candidates. In response to the advertisement published in the newspaper of 16/2/1992 the respondent no. 1 applied for post of Peon on 20/2/1992 and in said application, the applicant/respondent no. 1 had described himself as 'Valmik Ishvarbhai Mohanbhai'. In the application itself the respondent no. 1 had stated that he was a candidate belonging to Backward Classes. The name of respondent no. 1 was styled as 'Valmik even in the body of the application. Interview was arranged on 13/3/1992. Even in interview call letter, the respondent no. 1 was addressed as 'Valmik Ishvarbhai'. The Selection Committee was formed which included management representative, namely one Shri Prafulbhai C Shah, the Principal of the college and one Shri Adalja, who was representative of Director of Higher Education. The committee unanimously selected the respondent no. 1 in the post of Peon. The respondent no. 1 resumed duty on 27/3/1992. After the respondent no. 1 resumed his duty, ministerial staff of the college found that name of the respondent no. 1 is actually 'Ishvarbhai Vaghri'. Even in the certificate annexed by the respondent no. 1 with his application, the respondent no. 1 had been certified as person belonging to Vaghri community and he was certified to be a member belonging to Socially and Educationally Backward Class [for short 'SEBC'].

(3.) Mr. KL Pandya, Ld. AGP representing the petitioner ? State of Gujarat, submitted that the impugned judgment and order rendered by the Tribunal is contrary to law and facts on record. It is submitted that admittedly the respondent no. 1 does not belong to ST category for which the post was reserved. Despite this, the respondent no. 1 described himself as 'Valmik' and applied for the post. Soon after his appointment, this fact came to the notice of the college institution that as a matter of fact the respondent no. 1 belonged to SEBC category and not ST category and, therefore, the institution was justified in cancelling his appointment. It is further submitted that even before publishing the advertisement for the post, due sanction was not obtained from the Government.