KESHOTE, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties, perused the entire record of the writ petition, memo of appeal and the order of learned Single Judge challenged in this appeal.
(2.) WE cannot dismiss the appeal only on the ground that the interim relief is not granted by us and the selection, which was made for the appointment on the post of IIIrd Grade teacher in the year 1994 have already been culminated in the appointments and all the vacancies advertised are filled. In case on this ground the relief is declined to the litigant who approached to this Court, it will be negation of justice. The appellant is not responsible for this delay in decision in the matter by the Court. It is a system and for which the appellant cannot be blamed and that too to the extent to close this matter only on the ground that it could not be decided at an early date. It is a discretion of the court in the given case to grant or may not grant interim relief. In pursuance of the advertisement, Annex. 1 to the writ petition, published on 6. 5. 94 applications were invited for more than 100 posts of IIIrd Grade Teachers. The appellant belongs to the OBC Category and submitted his application in response to the advertisement. He also enclosed to it the certificate issue to him by the Tehsildar concerned certifying him a candidate of OBC. The appellant was called for interview on 7. 7. 94 but he was not given the appointment. The grievance of the appellant is that the candidates, who were having lesser marks than the appellant were given the appointment. On enquiry made by him it transpired that the certificate issued to him by Tehsildar concerned certifying him OBC is not in accordance with the rules. What poor appellant could have done more than to approach to the concerned Tehsildar to issue correct certificate, which was undisputedly issued on 8. 7. 94. He made representation on 25. 10. 94 enclosing there to this corrected certificate and prayed for giving him appointment under the category of OBC. It was not given and thus the appellant filed the writ petition in this Court out of which this appeal arises. Before the learned Single Judge the appellant cited for consideration the case of Smt. Heera Gupta. She has also filed the identical certificate for the appointment but she has been given the opportunity of filing the correct certificate. The difference in these two cases is that the lady produced the certificate on the date of interview but the appellant could not.
(3.) THE learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that he is not entitled for consideration for the appointment on the post of IIIrd Grade Teacher particularly when in pursuance of the interview held on 7. 7. 94, all the appointments have been made and on vacancy exists. It is not the case of the respondents that correct certificate produced by the appellant certifying that he is a OBC is a forged document. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the application of the appellant was defective and thus he was not considered and he was not given the appointment. The case of Smt. Heera Gupta stated to be clearly distinguishable. ;