ARUNA M SHAH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT appeal is filed being aggrieved by the judgment order dated 30th July, 1997, passed by this Court (Coram : R.M. Doshit, J., as Her Ladyship then was). Opening part of the judgment requires special mention and the same is reproduced for ready perusal, hereunder;

(2.) LEARNED Single judge was pleased to dismiss the petition giving reasons for the same, more particularly, in Paragraph Nos. 2, 3 and 4. Before the reasons for dismissal are examined it will be necessary to look into the prayer made by the petitioner in Special Civil Application. The petitioner prayed that,

(3.) THE petitioner has set out her case in Paragraph-4 onwards of the petition. It is mentioned in Paragraph-4 that it was respondent No.3 i.e. Director of Research and Training Centre of Gujarat State Text Book Board, who by a public notice, Dated : 11.01.1985, invited applications for the post of Assistant Librarian and other posts. It is also mentioned in Paragraph-4 that it was mentioned in the Public Notice that the applications are invited As per the Recruitment Rules of the Gujarat University. It is, then, stated in Paragraph-5 of the petition that the petitioner being a qualified Librarian applied for the post of Assistant Librarian and respondent No.3 - Director of Research & Training Centre, Gujarat State Textbook Board, appointed the petitioner as Assistant Librarian in the pay scale of Rs. 700 - 1300. It is specifically mentioned by the petitioner that the appointment of the petitioner was made in accordance with the recruitment rules of the Gujarat University (UGC) and services of the petitioner is governed by the rules and regulations of the Gujarat University. [Emphasis Supplied] The Court is not able to understand as to how does U.G.C. get in to the picture and why is it mentioned along with the Gujarat University. At this juncture, it will be appropriate to peruse the appointment order, Dated : 18.01.1986, Annexure-A to the petition. It is specifically mentioned, therein, that 'the petitioner is selected by the Selection Committee of the Research and Training Centre of Gujarat State Textbook Board' and that 'the appointment is given subject to the approval granted by the Gujarat University'. Any layman will be able to appreciate that when it is mentioned in the appointment order that, 'the appointment is subject to it being approved by the Gujarat University', the "approval" from Gujarat University is a necessary requirement. It is surprising that the petitioner has come with all 'bald assertions'. Only because it is mentioned in the opening part of the appointment order that 'the Rules and Regulations framed by way of resolutions from time to time by the Research and Training Centre of Gujarat State Textbook Board and the Gujarat University, which may be framed hereafter, will be binding to the petitioner'. The petitioner claims that her appointment has not only become absolute but she is also entitled to the payscale payable to Gujarat University employees that condition of 'appointment of the petitioner, being subject to approval by the Gujarat University', ceases to exist. This Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has deliberately twisted the facts so as to be successful in deriving the benefits and if not, at least, to create confusion so that at least some benefits could be derived from such confusion. In the advertisement, a copy of which is produced along with the petition, it is mentioned that, 'the Research and Training Centre of Gujarat State Textbook Board is to fill-in the following posts, as per the rules and regulations of the Gujarat University'. The phrase, "As per the Gujarat University rules and regulations", could mean, 'the educational qualification, experience and age will be, as prescribed by the Gujarat University'. But, this phrase cannot be interpreted to mean that, 'the person so selected will be paid the salary, which is paid to the Gujarat University employees'. Despite the aforesaid position, a very calculated and deliberate attempt is made on the part of the petitioner to claim that, 'she is an employee of Gujarat University for all practical purposes and she is required to be paid the salary as payable to the employees of the Gujarat University'. This Court is of the opinion that this is nothing, but an attempt to derive undue benefits, more particularly, by not putting on record the facts in their right perspective. The details about the earlier employment / appointment / other relevant facts, are not set as required. At this juncture, it will be appropriate to mention that the advertisement was issued by the In-Charge Officer of the the Research and Training Centre. Incidentally, a translated copy of the appointment order, Dated : 18.01.1986, is produced by the petitioner as an annexure to the petition. There Condition No.4 is as under;