MANISHABEN GOPALBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present petition, the petitioner has prayed for direction, directing the respondent authorities to consider her case for the appointment to the post of Shikshan Shahayak in the respondent no.3 - School.

(2.) The brief facts of present petition are as under:- An advertisement dated 01.11.2008 was issued by the respondent no.3 School for the post of Shikshan Sahayak having qualification of M.A.B.Ed. (Economics). As per roster point, candidate belonging to S.E.B.C. was considered eligible for such appointment. Accordingly, the petitioner applied for the post on 12.11.2008, and the petitioner remained present before the selection committee for the interview which was held on 25.08.2009 at Jambusar. The petitioner appeared before the duly constituted committee of five members. It is the say of the petitioner that selection committee selected the petitioner unanimously after considering the marks obtained in M.A.B.Ed. and M.Ed. After considering the mark sheet of the petitioner, she was allotted 29.774 marks, and she stood first in the rank, whereas respondent no.4 got only 27.037 marks. It seems that one of the members of the selection committee took objection to the marksheet of the petitioner, as she produced photocopy of the same. In view of that objection, the petitioner was not allotted marks of M.Ed. The petitioner, thereafter, submitted an application to the District Education Officer on 29.08.2009 stating that she should not be made suffer for the mistake committed by the University as her M.Ed. mark-sheet was recalled / sent by the College due to some defects. Hence, she was constrained to produce the photocopy of the same. Despite her request, as the petitioner was not offered any appointment, she was constrained to approach this Honourable Court.

(3.) Mr.Jasani, learned advocate for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner cannot be punished for no fault on her part. He has stated that there was no ill-intention on the part of the petitioner in not producing M.Ed. mark-sheet. He has also drawn attention of this Court that the additional marks of M.Ed. are to be counted in the merits, as the additional qualifications, if any, was possessed by a candidate was also called for by the Committee at the time of interview. In view of that, he has also submitted that if the appointment is offered to the petitioner, she would not be claiming any back-wages for the entire period.