DIPALI MRUGEN PUROHIT Vs. MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the Advertisement dated 14.7.2000 inviting applications from general category candidates for one post of Junior Lecturer - cum - Refractionist at C.H.Nagri Eye Hospital, and has prayed that this advertisement be quashed and has further prayed that the respondent Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation be directed to fill-up the post of aforesaid Junior Lecturer from amongst the eligible candidates of Scheduled Tribe and Socially & Economically Backward Class (S.E.B.C.) category.

(2.) Brief facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner belongs to SEBC Category and obtained Certificate from District Social Welfare Officer (Annexure : A). She possesses requisite qualification, namely, she holds Diploma in Ophthalmology and Master of Surgery in Ophthalmology standing first class first in both the examinations. There was huge backlog regarding appointments on the reserved post. Consequently the respondent No.1 through advertisement dated 17.11.1998 published in daily "Sandesh" a news paper, invited applications from the candidates of SC/ST, Socially & Economically Backward class as well as from persons suffering from physical handicaps for filling up the backlogs in 96 different categories of posts by Municipal Corporation. Item No.47 in the said advertisement relates to the post of Refractionist - cum - Junior Lecturer. It was only one post which was reserved for ST & SEBC candidates, etc. vide Annexure : B. In response to this advertisement the petitioner submitted her application to the respondent No.2 and was called for interview on 15.3.1999 vide interview letter Annexure : C. The petitioner remained present in the office of the respondent No.1 on 15.3.1999. She was informed that she was the sole eligible candidate. Her documents were verified by the Official of the Corporation. She was asked to wait for interview. Around 1.00 p.m. the petitioner was informed that the Municipal Commissioner was engaged in a meeting with the World Bank and therefore the interview was postponed and the petitioner would be informed of the rescheduled date of interview. The petitioner handed over letter intimating her attendance in the office of the Municipal Commissioner. Thereafter she waited regarding rescheduling of interview, but failed to receive any communication. She made representations to the Commissioner of the Corporation on 17.4.1999 and 26.4.1999, but the representations were not replied. She also made representation to the Minister for Social Welfare, etc. calling upon him to take necessary action in the matter vide Annexure : F. Further representations were made by her to the Mayor of Ahmedabad City, Minister for Urban Development and Municipal Commissioner of the respondent Corporation on 3.5.1999, 3.6.1999 and 3.5.1999 respectively. However, these representations also evoked no response. It is averred that prior to and during pendency of interview the respondent No.3 had been appointed on the said post on temporary basis and had been holding the said post for the last three years. The said respondent is general category candidate and had been continued on the said post since 12.12.1998 till date under the Resolutions of the Corporation dated 13.5.1999 and 2.7.1999. Her term was further extended from 12.12.1998 for a period of six months under Resolution dated 2.7.1999 of the Standing Committee. The case of the petitioner is that the aforesaid post is a reserved post which is required to be filled from amongst ST/SEBC candidates only though no resolution was passed by the standing Committee of the Corporation continuing the appointment of the respondent No.3 after 13.12.1999 still she is holding the said post. The petitioner made representation vide letter dated 14.4.2000, but with no result. On 14.7.2000 through subsequent advertisement the respondent invited applications for the aforesaid post from general category candidates vide Annexure : I. The petitioner also applied in response to this advertisement. Her further grievance is that the action of the Corporation in converting the reserved post into a general category post is arbitrary, unconstitutional, illegal and contrary to the reservation policy. It is also averred by the petitioner that the post in dispute is not a single post. There are 4 posts of the said cadre in the Corporation and as such the reservation already granted cannot be withdrawn on the ground that reservation does not apply to a single post.

(3.) The stand of the respondent No.3 in her counter Affidavit is that the post of Refractionist - cum Junior Lecturer in C.H.Nagri Eye Hospital is isolated post and single post, hence there cannot be any application of reservation policy for the single post in view of the Judgments of the Apex Court in R.K.Sabarval v/s. State of Punjab, reported in 1995 (2) SCC 75 and Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education Research, Chandigarh v/s. Faculty Association & ors. reported in AIR 1998 SC 1767. It is also stated that the petitioner, though eligible candidate can appear in the interview along with general category candidate and she can be selected if she is found meritorious. Another stand of this respondent is that the petitioner belongs to Creamy Layer of the backward class hence she is not entitled to any reservation.