Dhirubhai Naranbhai Patel, J. - (1.) THIS Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the order dated 25th March, 2014 passed in W.P.(S) No. 2507 of 2013, whereby the said petition preferred by this appellant has been dismissed and his prayer for appointment on the post of Chowkidar has been rejected by the learned Single Judge and therefore, original petitioner has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal. Submissions made on behalf of counsel for the appellant (Original Petitioner)
(2.) COUNSEL for the appellant (original petitioner) submitted that in fact this appellant was already selected on the post of Chowkidar vide resolution/order dated 27 August, 1991. However, even after a long lapse of time the respondent Government has not appointed this appellant as a Chowkidar and therefore, W.P.(C) No. 8159 of 1998 was instituted before this Court, which was decided vide order dated 29th June, 2004, in which it has been stated that the respondents shall decide the claim of this appellant in accordance with law. Thereafter, the respondent again passed an order rejecting the claim of this appellant contending that as per the prevailing rule/practice the minimum prerequisite qualification for the post of Chowkidar is Matriculation and therefore, this appellant could not be appointed because he has not cleared Matriculation examination. It is submitted by the counsel appearing for the appellant that neither the respondent State nor the learned Single Judge has appreciated that this appellant has already been selected for appointment on the post of Chowkidar on 27th August, 1991 and it is the Government, who has not appointed him even after lapse of a long time and therefore, the position prevailing on 27th August, 1991 under law should be made applicable to the appellant and not the latest criteria, which is now required for the post of Chowkidar. It is further submitted by the counsel for the appellant that actually this was the direction given by the learned Single Judge while disposing of W.P.(C) No. 8159 of 1998 vide order dated 29th June, 2004 and hence, the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 2507 of 2013 dated 25th March, 2014 deserves to be quashed and set aside and this appellant should be appointed on the post of Chowkidar. Submissions made on behalf of the respondent State Counsel for the respondent State submitted that no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing W.P.(S) No. 2507 of 2013 preferred by this appellant. The post of Chowkidar is not a post of inheritance, especially after the Indian Constitution came into force. It is a public post and therefore, there bound to be a public advertisement and public at large should be allowed to compete for the said post, whereas in the facts of the present case no such public advertisement was ever given. It is further submitted by the counsel for the respondents that minimum prerequisite educational qualification for the post of Chowkidar is clearance of Matriculation examination by the candidates. This appellant has not cleared matriculation examination, hence he cannot be appointed on the post in question.
(3.) COUNSEL for the respondent has relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Surender Paswan & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in : (2010)6 Supreme Court Cases 680 and has submitted that in view of the aforesaid decision and taking into consideration the fact that public advertisement is must for appointment on a public post, this appellant can not be appointed directly on the post of Chowkidar without there being fulfillment of the criteria of minimum educational qualification of Matriculation and without publication of any public advertisement, which is necessary under Article 16 of the Constitution of India and therefore, there being no substance in this Letters Patent Appeal, it may not be entertained by this court. REASONS:;