GONDALIA DHIRAJLAL BANABHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As both these Special Civil Applications proceed on common facts and grounds, the same are being taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) Shri H. J. Nanavati, the Counsel for the petitioners, has advanced the arguments with reference to the Special Civil Application No. 11556 of 1994, and as such, the facts are taken from this Special Civil Application.

(3.) The petitioners in both these Special Civil Applications possess all the requisite qualifications prescribed for the post of Primary Teachers to be appointed in the Primary Schools in the District Panchayat. The respondent Junagadh District Panchayat had on 13th August, 1989 given an advertisement in three daily Gujarati Newspapers, viz., "Phoolchhab", "Sandesh" and "Jai Hind" inter-alia inviting applications for filling up the posts of Primary Teachers in the schools run by it. At the bottom of this advertisement, the number of approximate vacancies to be filled in was shown to be as 592. In response to the said advertisement, all the petitioners have applied for the posts. Pursuant to their applications, the petitioners were called for interview vide letter dated 18th November, 1989 and interviews were fixed on 28th and 29th November, 1989. The recruitment and other service conditions to the posts of Primary Teachers are regulated under the provisions of Gujarat Panchayat Services (Primary Teachers' Recruitment) Rules, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules, 1970"). The petitioners have come up with a case that the interview call letters have been sent to them wherein serial/rank number of the candidates concerned were given. Referring to Rule 8 of the Rules, 1970, the petitioners stated that the rank number on the interview call letters are given because after receipt of the application from the candidates, a list of qualified candidates is required to be prepared by the Administrative Officer. This list has to be arranged in the order of percentage of marks obtained by the candidates at the qualifying examination. Pursuant to the said interview call letters, the petitioners appeared before the Selection Committee duly constituted under the Rules, 1970. The petitioners stated that after the interviews were over, to the best of their knowledge, the select list is prepared and all the petitioners, according to their information, are selected for the posts. However, they made a statement that whatever stated aforesaid is subject to what may be pointed out by the other side. The petitioners have further stated that so far as the petitioner No. 2 is concerned, his name was stated to be placed at Sr. No. 81 in the select list. The petitioners were expecting their appointment orders but under the circular dated 5th January, 1990, the respondent-State Government directed the District Panchayat concerned not to make appointments of general candidates so selected unless and until the backlog posts of reserved candidates are first filled in. As a consequence thereof, the petitioners stated that the appointments were not made by the respondents from the select list prepared in response to the advertisement dated 13th August, 1989. The petitioners have further given out that as per their information, the backlog of the reserved posts was of 469 posts but against that backlog, the District Panchayat has filled in 809 posts which were more in number than what the backlog was there. Against this recruitment of the reserved category, the petitioners stated that there was a hue and cry about the bona fides of the Panchayat to make these appointments. Thereafter, the District Development Officer, Junagadh District Panchayat started inquiry somewhere on 6th August, 1991 and as a result of the said inquiry it was found that out of 809 candidates so selected from the reserved categories about 420 candidates were either not eligible or their certificates were forged and/or bogus and/ or concocted and also manipulated. As a consequence of that report of the inquiry, the services of 420 candidates belonging to reserved categories were terminated. The petitioners further averred that the aforesaid candidates tried to challenge that action of the Panchayat before this Court but the Special Civil Application filed by them came to be dismissed somewhere in the month of May or June, 1994. However, neither of the parties have given the details of that Special Civil Application filed by those persons before this Court. However, the parties are not on issue that none of the appointees out of 420 whose services were terminated was taken back in service. The petitioners made several representations from time to time to the respondents and prayed therein for giving them the appointments from the select list as prepared in response to the advertisement dated 13th August, 1989. To their shock and surprise, the second advertisement was given by the Panchayat in only one daily Gujarati Newspaper, i.e., Gujarat Samachar on 21-9-1994 interalia inviting applications for the said posts. A copy of this advertisement has been placed on record of this Special Civil Application as Annexure "C". After that advertisement, the petitioners made a representation dated 26th September, 1994 wherein it has been mentioned that they should be first given the appointments on the said posts as the select list was not operated on account of some malpractice by the then Administrative Officer but when nothing has been done on those representation of the petitioners, they have approached to this Court by way of this Special Civil Application.