- (1.)THIS petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed with the following prayers:
(A) To quash and set aside as illegal and bad in law, the action of the respondent in not giving appointment to the petitioner on the post of primary teacher pursuant to the petitioner's interview on 3-3-92 as per the interview call letter dated 24-2-92 as per Annexure-`B'; and be further pleased to direct the respondent to give appointment to the petitioner, and also to give all the consequential benefits of seniority and pay;

(B) Pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, be pleased to direct the respondent to give provisional appointment to the petitioner, subject to the result of this petition; (C) To grant costs of this petition and to grant any other appropriate and just relief/s;

(2.)BRIEFLY stated, the case of the petitioner is that, the respondent issued an Advertisement on, or around, 10.04.1991, inviting applications for the posts of Primary Teachers to be filled up in accordance with the provisions of the Gujarat Panchayats Service (Recruitment of Primary Teachers) Rules, 1970. The petitioner has passed her SSC examination in 1986, PTC examination in 1988, Intermediate Drawing Examination in 1986, Rashtrabhasha Kovid Hindi Examination in 1988 and WCGM Tailoring Examination in 1990. As stated in the petition, being eligible for the post advertised, the petitioner applied in response to the said advertisement. By letter dated 24.02.1992, the respondent District Primary Education Officer called the petitioner for interview along with other candidates. The interview was held on 03.03.1992 and the petitioner appeared for the same. The case of the petitioner is that she ranks very high on merit as per Circular dated 07.08.1989 issued by the State Government, and, according to the formula set out in the said Circular for determining merits, the petitioner is entitled to 64.47 percentage. However, the petitioner came to know in April 1992 that several candidates possessing lesser merit than the petitioner have been issued appointment orders by the respondent, but the petitioner was not offered appointment. The petitioner made a representation to the respondent on 30.04.1992 which was not responded to. In this factual background, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition.
It is significant to note that the petition has been filed on 24.02.1994. Rule was issued by this Court on 25.02.1994. However, till date, no reply has been filed by the respondent. The Court is, therefore, left with no other option except to refer to the averments made in the petition. Mr.K.B.Pujara, learned advocate for the petitioner, has submitted that the action of the respondent in not giving appointment to the petitioner, whereas several candidates having lesser merit having been appointed, is arbitrary, discriminatory and liable to be quashed and set aside. It is further submitted that according to the formula for determining merits of the candidates in the Circular of the State Government dated 07.08.1989, the petitioner, who has passed SSC and PTC examinations, as also the special examination of Drawing, Hindi and Tailoring, is entitled to 64.47 percentage of marks, yet, she has not been appointed. Reference has been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner to the names of eleven candidates having lesser merit than the petitioner.

Mr.Anand L.Sharma, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent, is not in a position to take any stand, in absence of the affidavit-in-reply being filed by the respondent.

(3.)THE petitioner has set out the names of the following eleven persons along with their percentage, as below: Sr. No. Name of the persons Percentage 1 Chamar Keshabhai Maganbhai 63.2% 2 Kyadayata Vasantkumar Kanjibhai 62.89% 3 Vankar Madhuben Maganbhai 62.81% 4 Parmar Vimalaben Nathabhai 63.46% 5 Parmar Chandaben Narottambhai 63.30% 6 Vankar Chandrikaben Lalabhai 63.60% 7 Parmar Jashiben Kantilal 63.50% 8 Bhanbhi Jashodaben Hirabhai 62.34% 9 Ranchhod Ishwarbhai Somabhai 62.80% 10 Bhanbi Hansaben Govabhai 63.73% 11 Parmar Mahesh Sarjibhai 63.15%
The case of the petitioner is based upon Government Circular dated 07.08.1989, according to which she ought to have been given 64.47% marks, which is more than the percentages of the eleven candidates named hereinabove. The prayer of the petitioner is not directed against those eleven candidates, but is confined to grant of appointment to the petitioner herself.