BARIA KUSUM LAXMANBHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Learned counsel for the respondents waive service. By consent of the parties, expressed through their learned advocates, the matter was heard for final disposal today.

(2.) Invoking Articles 14, 16 and 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has approached this Court with the main prayers to direct respondent No.3, i.e. District Education Officer, Jamnagar, to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner pursuant to the interview held on 15.2.2006 and to direct respondent No.4-school to issue appointment order.

(3.) The relevant facts emerging from the record and the affidavits filed on behalf of the parties are that, pursuant to the advertisement dated 29.9.2005, the petitioner had received a call for interview for the purpose of selection for appointment to the post of "shikshan sahayak" under respondent No.4. On the date of interview, i.e. 15.2.2006, the petitioner stood second, according to the marking given by the Interview Committee. The candidate who was at serial No.1 and who is joined as respondent No.5 herein, did not deposit her original testimonials and the proceedings to that effect were drawn by the members of the selection committee. The petitioner made an application dated 6.3.2006 stating that the candidate at serial No.1, i.e. Respondent No.5, had refused to deliver the original testimonials and left the place of interview on 15.2.2006. Therefore, the petitioner was asked to deposit her original testimonials and she had done so. On account of that, she had missed the interview held on the next day at another school because of the uniform rule of showing original certificates at the time of interview. She apprehended that respondent No.5 was likely to submit her testimonials afterwards and deprive the petitioner of her opportunity to be appointed. The petitioner has relied upon the clarification dated 07.01.2006 issued by the Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Board and addressed to all the District Education Officers wherein it is clarified that, at the time of interview, the selection committee shall have to treat the candidates without original testimonials as "absent". The petitioner has produced on record the receipt issued by the school to signify submission of all the original certificates on 15.2.2006 itself. It is after several queries and applications under the Right to Information that the petitioner came to know that respondent No.5 had resigned with effect from 20.2.2006 from her employment under another school in Junagadh and that she was given her original testimonials from that school on 21.2.2006.