BARIA LILABEN MULJIBHAI Vs. KHEDA DIST EDUCATION COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is filed seeking a direction against the respondents to the effect that the petitioner be appointed as a Primary Teacher as per her turn in the Select List prepared in 1989-90 and a further direction to the respondents to operate the existing Select List to the extent of vacancies existing in the cadre of Primary Teachers in District-Kheda and so on and so forth.

(2.) The short facts of the case are that the respondent no.1, Kheda District Education Committee, caused an advertisement on 30th September, 1989, inviting applications for the post of Primary Teachers. The advertisement also mentioned that there were as many as 900 vacancies and the vacancies arising in future were also to be taken into consideration. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was successful in selection and her name appeared at Serial No.983 in the Select List. It is also the case of the petitioner that after having given appointment to 472 candidates, the petitioner and other similarly situated persons noticed some movement on the part of the respondents for preparing of new Select List and, therefore, several persons like the petitioner approached this Court by filing petitions, being Special Civil Application Nos.4300 of 1990, 4142 of 1992 and other allied matters. It is submitted that in those petitions, this Court was pleased to grant interim relief to the effect that, `a new Select List shall not be prepared by the respondents and the existing select list be operated'. The case of the petitioner is that it is in this Select List that the petitioner stood at Serial No.983 and as per the order of this Court, the petitioner ought to have been given appointment, operating the Select List in seriatim. It is further case of the petitioner that the respondents, for the reasons best known to them, did not operate the Select List in serial order and overlooking the claim of the petitioner, gave appointment to the candidates, whose names were at Serial Nos.1150, 1152, 1155, 1186, 1191, 1197 and 1200. It is, therefore, submitted that there is a clear violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for.

(3.) Mrs.Disha Nanavati for Mr.N.D.Nanavati, learned Advocate for the petitioner, submitted that this is a matter wherein claim is made for getting appointment only on the ground that the name of the petitioner was included in the Select List. She submitted that it is a well settled legal position that merely because a name of a candidate is included in the Select List, no right accrues in favour of the candidate and, therefore, this petition is required to be dismissed on this sole ground. She further submitted that in the alternative, the matter being that of the year 1993 and the Select List being that of the year 1989-90, the petitioner will not be answering the eligibility criterion today and, therefore also, the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief in the petition.