VIRENDRA KARSANBHAI SOLANKI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is B.Sc.-B.Ed. and belonging to Socially and Educationally Backward Class in relation to the State of Gujarat and had applied for the post of Assistant Teacher pursuant to advertisement dated 30th April 2000 issued by respondent No.3-School. His grievance is that he was not called for interview held on 30th June 2000 and respondent No.4 was appointed, though he was eligible and entitled on merits to be called for the interview. THErefore, he has prayed to quash appointment of respondent No.4 and to issue direction to the respondents concerned to hold a fresh interview.

(2.) INITIALLY, the petition was disposed of on 27th September 2000 with a direction to the petitioner to make a representation to respondent No.3 and with the direction to respondent No.3 to give out reasons on the representation; and if the petitioner were not satisfied with the reasons, liberty was granted to revive the petition. After such initial order, the Principal of respondent No.3-School has stated on oath that as the petitioner had not annexed original marksheets with his application for appointment, he was not called for interview. After the aforesaid order and subsequent order of this Court, the petitioner was informed to remain personally present on 10th July 2001 for personal hearing. Thereafter, on 10th July 2001 a Rojkam was recorded in presence of the petitioner and respondent No.4, wherein it was stated that the petitioner had not attached copies of the marksheet along with the application and, therefore, interview call was not sent to him. In the meantime, respondent No.4 was appointed and upon his appointment being sanctioned by the District Education Officer (respondent No.2), he had taken over charge on 12th July 2000. A copy of the Rojkam dated 10th July 2001 is annexed with affidavit of the Principal of respondent No.3-School.

(3.) ON perusal of the Circular dated 15th October 1994, it was noticed that it was issued to all the District Education Officers to prescribe a uniform selection procedure for recruitment of teaching and non-teaching staff in the registered private secondary schools. The specific instructions are contained in two parts in the Circular. The first part relates to constitution of Staff Selection Committees, which is followed by specific instructions prescribing the procedure for selection of staff in the registered private secondary schools. It is clearly stated in Clause 3 (1) of the instructions that all the earlier instructions in respect of selection of staff in registered private secondary schools stood repealed by the Circular; and sub-clause (12) prescribed that the original testimonials of the application were to be verified at the time of interview and certified copies thereof were to be kept on record. It is further instructed in Clause 3(19) that the applicant who had mentioned in the application his educational qualifications with percentage of marks, has to be compulsorily issued a call for interview, and such application could not be rejected on the ground that the applicant had not annexed with the application certified copies of the marksheets. The obligation to abide by these instructions is not denied by the respondents and it is clear that the District Education Officer, the respondent No.2 herein, is an active participant in the process of selection.