MAYURSINH DUDABHAI BARAD Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsels for the parties.

(2.) The petitioners have preferred this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the action of respondents no.3 & 4 in holding interview for the purpose of selection to the post of Vidya Sahayak between 8/12/2004 and 10/12/2004, and also challenged the decision of the respondent no.4 dated 3/11/2004 being illegal, unjust, arbitrary, invalid and in violation of principle of natural justice. It is the say of the petitioners that they were holding the requisite qualification and they belong to SEBC community. The petitioners applied for the post of Vidya Sahayak in response to the advertisement dated 9/7/2004. Admittedly this advertisement was for filling post of Vidya Sahayak numbering 644. The petitioners were fulfilling the qualification criteria mentioned in the advertisement. The list was prepared and yet they were not appointed and when their turn came up for appointment, instead of appointing them, again the respondents released another advertisement and therefore being aggrieved by this action of the respondents the present petition is filed.

(3.) Respondent no.4 District Primary Education Officer has filed an affidavit wherein it is clearly stated that the advertisement was for filling post of Vidya Sahayak numbering 644. The break up of these vacancies have been given in the affidavit in reply. The petitioners say that there were about 800 and odd posts vacant is controverted. It is contended that the remaining posts which were vacant could not have been filled in by the public advertisement. It was not mentioned about the same in the advertisement dated 9/7/2004.