PATEL MANJULABEN MANILAL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners has prayed for following relief in paragraph 12 (A) & (B):

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioners that pursuant to the advertisement for the post of Mukhya Sevika, the petitioners applied. However, some candidates filed Special Civil Application No. 7726 of 1999 wherein this Court granted stay and recruitment process could not be finalized but later on, on stay being vacated, this court directed to finalize the select list in pursuance to the said advertisement. The petitioners were then called for interview by letter dated 17.12.2011. It is the case of the petitioners that when the petitioners reached to the place of interview and inquired about any guidelines or criteria to be followed by the interview committee, nobody informed the petitioner about any such guidelines or criteria to be followed by the interview committee. The petitioners have averred that the span of interview was only of one or two minutes and the selection committee had almost asked similar question to all the candidates. It is the further case of the petitioners that though the petitioners were eligible to be appointed, the respondents appointed some other persons of lower merit than the petitioners. Petitioners have further averred that the respondents had not fixed any guidelines or criteria for awarding marks for interview and, therefore, viva-voce test taken by the respondent was irrational and in violation of fundamental rights of the petitioners under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) I have heard the learned advocates for the parties.