RANCHHODJI MODJI JADEJA Vs. SHANKAERBHAI PARMABHAI CHAUDHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who was working as C.R.C. Co-ordinator at Korda, Tal. Santalpur, District Patan, approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the action of the respondent State in not appointing him as B.R.C. Co-ordinator, Varahi, Tal. Santalpur, Dist. Patan and appointing respondent No. 1 as B.R.C. Co-ordinator, Varahi (Santalpur) vide order dated 5.7.2003, on the ground that the petitioner was eligible and had scored more marks in the selection procedure than respondent No. 1 and yet he was denied the appointment.

(2.) Facts in brief deserve to be set out as under:

(3.) The petitioner who was working as C.R.C. Co-ordinator at Korda, Taluka Santalpur, has offered his candidature for appointment to the post of B.R.C. Co-ordinator pursuant to the public invitation placed on record at page 12 whereunder under D.P.E.P. Project appointments were required to be made on the basis of deputation from amongst the C.R.C. Co-ordinators/Primary Teachers working in Banaskantha District. The petitioner was called for interview vide letter dated 6.3.2003. However, the interviews were not conducted and subsequently, he was called for interview on 4.6.2003. The petitioner was not appointed, though was eligible, and one Shri Shankarbhai Parmabhai Chaudhary respondent No. 1 came to be appointed on the said post. Being aggrieved by the action of the respondents, the petitioner preferred writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 9941 of 2003 wherein this Court (Coram: H.K. Rathod, J) on 15.7.2003 directed the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within two months from the date of the receipt of the representation from the petitioner. The petitioner accordingly made representation which is produced at page 38. The same was rejected by the concerned authorities vide order dated 9-10/9/2003. It appears that the representation was rejected by the District Project Co-ordinator and District Primary Education Officer, Patan, mainly on the ground that the petitioner was appointed as C.R.C. Co-ordinator by Palanpur Office. He was directed to make appropriate representation to the competent authority. The petitioner did not prefer further representation and moved this Court. The petitioner also preferred a Civil Application being Civil Application No. 10572 of 2007 in Special Civil Application No. 15481 of 2003 for direction as respondent No. 1 who was appointed and whose appointment was also under challenge in this petition, came to be transferred to Harij as Primary Teacher upon his own request and the post held by him of B.R.C. Co-ordinator had fallen vacant. Along with this application, the petitioner annexed an order dated 27.4.2007 issued by the District Primary Education Officer, District Panchayat, Patan, informing him that his representation dated 1.4.2007 for his appointment cannot be accepted as out of the select list a candidate i.e. respondent No. 1 had been appointed and thus that list had been exhausted. The petitioner has produced along with the said application the proceedings of the Selection Committee and the assessment sheet whereunder the Selection Committee allocated marks under different heads to the candidates. The petitioner, out of 100 marks, obtained 38 marks that is the highest mark whereas respondent No. 1 whose appointment is under challenge in the present petition, obtained total 27 marks out of 100 marks. The respondents have not denied this fact by filing any affidavit in reply. Mr. Munshaw, learned advocate for the respondents, did not deny this fact that the petitioner obtained highest marks in the selection procedure and respondent No. 1 obtained only total 27 marks out of 100 marks. The petitioner has been, thus, aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents in not offering him appointment to the post of B.R.C. Co-ordinator, Varahi (Santalpur).