PRAJAPATI RAMESHBHAI KALUBHAI Vs. DISTRICT PRIMARY EDUCATION OFFICER
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Prajapati Rameshbhai Kalubhai
DISTRICT PRIMARY EDUCATION OFFICER
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have made following prayers in paragraph 10 (A) & (B) of the petition:
"10(A) to direct the respondent to operate the existing selection list of 1113+223=1336 candidates prepared pursuant to the advertisement dtd. 12.11.1999 as per Annexure A until all the 1113 vacancies notified in the said advertisement are actually and completely filled up from the said selection lists as per the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Virender S. Hooda and others versus State of Haryana and another, 1999 3 SCC 696; (B) to quash and set aside the illegal action of the respondent in not exhausting the existing selection list of 1113+223=1336 candidates prepared pursuant to the advertisement dtd. 12.11.1999 and interviews held on 23/24.12.1999 until all the 1113 vacancies are completely and actually filled up from the said selection list;"
(2.) The case of the petitioners is that they belong to the category of Baxi Panch. They are eligible and qualified to be appointed as Primary Teachers/Vidya Sahayaks. The respondents issued advertisement dated 12.11.1999 inviting applications for 1113 vacancies of Vidya Sahayak. The petitioners applied for the same. On or about 20.12.1999, respondents published merit list of all the candidates who were to be placed in the select list of 1113+223 i.e.1336 candidates in all. Under the Recruitment Rules, select list is to be prepared to the extent of 20% more than the number of vacancies and such list is to remain operative for a period of one year. The petitioners were called for oral interview by Call letters dated 13.12.1999. Their certificates and mark sheets were retained by the respondents with a view to give them appointments.
(3.) It is the further case of the petitioners that initially 924 appointment orders were issued on or about 23.1.2000. However, some of the candidates to whom appointment orders were issued did not join. The respondents are, therefore, duty bound to operate the select list until all the 1113 vacancies were actually and completely filled in. The petitioners have averred that they learnt that as many as 208 vacancies remained unfilled out of 1113 vacancies notified in the advertisement issued on or about 23.1.2000. However, some of the candidates to whom appointment orders were issued did not join. Thereafter, on or about 2.7.2000, 131 appointment orders were issued. Out of them also, some candidates did not join. Thus, in all, 1055 appointment orders were issued as against 1113 vacancies and even out of 1055 candidates, several candidates did not join the duty. The respondents are, therefore, duty bound to operate the select list until all the 1113 vacancies were actually and completely filled in. Instead of filling such vacancies, the respondent initiated fresh recruitment process by advertisement dated 9.8.2000 inviting applications for 892 vacancies including unfilled 208 vacancies from the earlier round of advertisement. The respondent has thus deprived the petitioners and other similarly situated candidates of their right to get employment who are in the select list of 1113+223 candidates prepared pursuant to earlier advertisement dated 12.11.1999 though select list was to remain operative for one year and though clear vacancies were available.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.