ATUL KUMAR NANJIBHAI PANCHAL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard learned counsel Mr.K.M.Antani for the appellant and Mr.Urshit Oza, learned AGP for the respondents.

(2.) THIS Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 5.11.2012 passed in Special Civil Application No.12039 of 2012. It is not disputed that in pursuance of an advertisement, results were declared on 16.9.2011. The petitioner could not be declared successful, as he had obtained only 8 marks in Computer Practical whereas he was required to obtain 10 marks. The select list was published on 16.9.2011 and its validity was only for one year. One candidate, namely, Kalpeshkumar Natvarlal Patel resigned on 22.3.2012, which was accepted on 29.6.2012. The respondents have issued a call letter to the petitioner, but instead of selecting the petitioner, they have issued a fresh advertisement.

(3.) WE are not in agreement with the learned counsel for the appellant for the reasons that if Mr.Kalpeshkumar Patel or any other candidate would not have joined the post, then the vacancy could be been filled form the waiting list. But once the candidate joined the post, then the vacancy is deemed to be filled and if resignation is tendered thereafter, then such post has to be filled in by issuing fresh advertisement.