B P KUMPAVAT Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Reply to the writ petition has not been filed though rules was issued on 31st March, 1994, returnable on 25th April, 1994. Mr. Bambania, learned counsel for the respondents made request to the court to grant one more indulgence to the respondents to file reply. I fail to see any justification for the request which has been made by Mr. Bambania. After rule was issued in this case, one year and nine months have passed, and despite having such a long time available to them the respondents have not chosen to file reply. It is really a sorry state of affair in the Government. It exhibits how the Government takes the litigations. This matter pertains to the petitioners, who are out of employment and seeking appointment, on the basis of their selection which has been made after inviting applications from the open market. It is the second time that the petitioners have approached this court in the matter. Taking into consideration all these facts the request made by Mr. Bambania is declined.

(2.) The petitioners came to be appointed in the service of the respondents on the post of Computer after selection in the year 1984. The respondents invited applications from the employment exchange for recruitment to the post of Statistical Assistant, a post higher in status than the post of computer. The petitioners complained that no public advertisement has been given inviting applications on these posts and the names have been sponsored from the office of the District Employment Exchange. When the petitioners are in service and that too in a regular service, their names could not have been sponsored by the employment exchange and as such they would have been denied the right of consideration for appointment in public employment. The petitioners having come to know about the fact the respondents are going to make appointment by selection on the post of Statistical Assistant, made request to the respondents to consider their candidature. The petitioners have come up with the case that they possess all the requisite qualifications as required for appointment on the post of Statistical Assistant. As it usually happens in the Departments, adopting tachnical aproach in the matter, that is, names of the petitioners have not been sponsored by the employment exchange, the respondents have not called the petitioners for interview for the post of Statistical Assistant. At this juncture the petitioners were left with no option except to approach this Court for protection of the fundamental right as conferred to them under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India by filing special civil application No. 2258 of 1991. In that petition this Court directed the respondents by interim order to interview the petitioners for the post of Statistical Assistants. In pursuance of the order of this Court the respondents have permitted the petitioners to appear before the selection committee, they have been interviewed and, as stated by the petitioners, their names have been placed at serial No. 4 and 15 respectively in the select list.

(3.) The grievance made by the petitioners in the present writ petition is that though they are at serial Nos. 4 and 15 in the select list, the respondents have given appointment to candidate at serial No. 17. The petitioners made representations from time to time to the respondents. Who have not responded to either of the representations. When the petitioners felt helpless at the hands of the respondents to get the relief, they filed the present writ petition before this Court.