BARAD PRAVINSINH ROOPSINH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioner has prayed that the respondents be directed to exhaust the Select List prepared pursuant to the advertisement dated 28th February, 1991, which, according to the petitioner, was in existence on the date of filing of the petition i.e. 15th October, 1999.

(2.) The facts of the case are that respondent no.2, Secretary, Gujarat Panchayat Service Selection Board, Ahmedabad, gave an advertisement on 28th February, 1991 for the post of Talati-cum-Mantri for District:Kheda for 27 posts. A copy of the advertisement is placed on record at Annexure-C (page 18). From the advertisement, it is clear that in all, 27 posts of Talati-cum-Mantri were advertised, of which fourteen were marked for General category, two were reserved for Scheduled Caste category, six were reserved for Scheduled Tribe category, three were marked for Socially and Educationally Backward Class category and two were reserved for physically handicapped persons. The petitioner is claiming to be a physically handicapped person and to substantiate his claim, he has produced a certificate dated 18th July, 1988 issued by the Superintendent and Civil Surgeon, Civil Hospital, Nadiad, stating that, `the petitioner suffers from residual polimyelibis right lower limb'. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner applied for the post of Talati-cum-Mantri in response to the said advertisement. He passed through the process of selection successfully and his name was placed at Serial No.20 in the Select List; that this was intimated to the petitioner by a communication dated 2nd July, 1992, a copy of which is annexed at Annexure-A to the petition. The respondent no.1-State of Gujarat, Secretary, Rural Housing and Rural Development Department, Gandhinagar, who informed the petitioner that as there is ban on recruitment to the extent of 10% of vacancies, the petitioner cannot be appointed. These facts are stated in paragraph-3.2 of the memo of the petition and to substantiate the same, a copy of letter dated 17th July, 1997 of Panchayat Rural Housing and Rural Development Department is produced at Annexure-B. On perusal of the same, it is noticed that the said letter is addressed to one Mr.Dodia Dilipsinh Prabhatsinh and not to the petitioner. This Mr.Dodia Dilipsinh had approached this Court by filing Special Civil Application No.7323 of 1997. The said Special Civil Application No.7323 of 1997 was decided by this Court (Coram: S.K.Keshote, J.) by judgement and order dated 30th June, 1999. It is only after the said judgement having come to the notice of the petitioner, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this petition. There is no letter written by the petitioner to respondent no.1 and similarly, there is no intimation sent to the petitioner. To that extent, the averments made in paragraph-3.2 are not borne out from the record.

(3.) The petitioner has based his entire case on the fact that in Kheda District, appointment was denied to the said Mr.Dilipsinh Prabhatsinh Dodia on the ground of there being ban to the extent of 10% as per letter dated 17th July, 1997 (Annexure-B to the petition), whereas in Bharuch District, where also an identical advertisement was issued by respondent no.2 in the year 1990 (a copy of which is produced at Annexure-C, page 17), pursuant to which, a Select List was prepared and was published on 28th November, 1991, a copy of which is annexed at Annexure-D, page 19, consisting of 65 names though the advertisement was for 45 posts only was granted sanction by respondent no.1 vide letter dated 22nd April, 1997.