1. By way of this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: “(a) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction in nature of mandamus or certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction holding and declaring that the action of Respondent No.1 and 2 is not issuing interview call illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and therefore Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct Respondent No.1 and 2 to call for interview.
(b) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus or certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction holding and declaring that the petitioner is entitled to call for interview.
(c) Pending admission hearing and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to grant interim injunction directing the Respondent No.1 and 2 to keep a post vacant of Mukhya Sevika and call for interview.
(d) That this Hon'ble Court will be pleased to pass such and further order as the nature and circumstances of the case may require.”
2. The facts arising out of this petition can be summarized are that the petitioner was appointed as Anganwadi worker in Bhavnagar Mahanagarpalika vide order dated 31.7.1986. It transpires that by an advertisement dated 22.12.1998, respondent Nos.1 and 2 invited application for recruitment of Mukhya Sevika. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner applied for the said post. However, the experience certificate which was one of the basic requirement as per the said advertisement dated 22.12.1998 was not produced. The application filed by the petitioner came to be rejected. It further transpires from the record of the petition that the petitioner thereafter filed a representation to the concerned authority on 13.5.1998.
3. As averred in the petition, the recruitment process which was initiated by the respondent authorities, under advertisement dated 22.12.1998, was subject matter of challenge before this Court in Special Civil Application No.7726 of 1999 which was admitted and the following order was passed by this Court (Coram: M.R. Calla, J.) on 23.11.1999.
“Learned Counsel for the petitioners has given out that 356 posts of Mukhya Sevikas, ClassIII posts of the Gujarat State Services were advertised on 22nd December 1998. In response to the notice inviting applications, the petitioners herein along with others had applied for the said post of Mukhya Sevikas. Thus the process of recruitment had already been started by issuing the notice inviting applications vide advertisement dated 22nd December 1998, nay, the interview letters had also been issued in the beginning of September 1999 and the interviews were to commence from 28th September 1999 and to last upto the end of October 1999. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioners that at this juncture the process of recruitment which had already begin and which had reached the stage of interviews was stopped by a public advertisement issued on 29th September 1999 on the basis of the amendments made in the Gujarat Panchayats Services Selection Board (Function) Rules, 1999 read with the Gujarat Panchayats Services (ClassIII) Recruitment (Examination) Rules, 1999, issued vide Gazette notification dated 28th September 1999 by the Panchayats, Rural Housing and Rural Development Department. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that even if the Rules have been amended on 28th September 1999, the process of recruitment which had already been commenced and which was at the final stage of holding interviews in respect of the vacancies which had become available prior to the amendment in the Rules issued on 28th September 1999 could not be stopped and it should have been taken to its logical end in accordance with the Rules which were in force at the time when the vacancies became available and at the time when the process of recruitment had commenced. The challenge has also been thrown to the validity of the Rules by saying that the requirement of holding competitive written examination for a post like Mukhya Sevikas was wholly arbitrary and that the amendment in the Rules has been made in colourable exercise of the powers.
Rule. Mr. V.B. Gherania, learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader who has entered appearance on behalf of the respondents in response to the notice issued by this Court, waives the service of Rule.
Mr. Vakharia has pressed for the interim relief. I have heard Mr.Vakharia and Mr.Gherania on the question of interim relief. In the facts and circumstances of this case, it is directed that the respondents may go ahead with the process of recruitment with regard to the 356 vacancies on the post of Mukhya Sevikas as advertised on 22nd December 1998 in accordance with the Rules as they were in existence prior to 28th September 1999 and in respect of these 356 vacancies of Mukhya Sevikas, the amendment in Rules notified on 28th September 1999 shall not be made use of.”
4. The aforesaid interim order dated 23.11.1999 was challenged in Letters Patent Appeal and the same was disposed of by remanding the matter back to the learned Single Judge directing that it would be open for the respondents to fill in the posts under Gujarat Superior Panchayat Services (Class III). As per the said advertisement, three posts will be kept vacant in the cadre of Mukhya Sevika and it was interalia held that the said order sufficiently protected the interest of the petitioner. It transpires that thereafter, the main writ petition being Special Civil Application No.7726 of 1999 was finally disposed of by this Court (Coram: K.S. Jhaveri, J.) vide judgment and order dated 5.4.2010 wherein this Court was pleased to observe thus: “7.0 I have heard Ms. Mehta, learned advocate for the petitioner and Ms. Sangeeta Vishen, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondentState. As far as prayer 17 (a) is concerned, the same has become infructuous. The Rules at Annexure D and Annexure E to the petition were issued subsequent to the advertisement which have no retrospective effect. Therefore, at the relevant time, Rules at Annexure D and Annexure E should not have been made applicable. Therefore, with regard to prayer 17(b) of the petition, it is clarified that the respondent shall make Rules applicable only on the date of advertisement.
8.0 Now the three posts which were kept vacant in the cadres of Mukhya Sevikas shall be filled in as per the Rules which were existing at the time of advertisement.
9.0. With the above clarification, petition stands disposed of. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated.”
5. It further transpires that thereafter, apropos to the order passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No.7726 of 1999 dated 5.4.2010, an advertisement was issued in Gujarati daily “Sandesh” on 30.12.2011 to fill in those three posts. The said advertisement is part of the record of this petition (AnnexureI Page29).
6. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the petitioner applied for the post of Mukhya Sevika. However, the petitioner has not been issued call letter and being aggrieved by such an action, the present petition is filed by the petitioner.
7. Mr. Mayur S. Barot, learned advocate for the petitioner has taken this Court through the factual matrix of the matter as stated hereinabove and has pointed out that the petitioner is victimized as the petitioner is President of Bharatiya Anganwadi Karmachari Mahasangh, Gujarat Pradesh. It is submitted that as far as the efficiency is concerned, the petitioner has secured 35 points, whereas her juniors who are being issued call letters have secured less than the points secured by the petitioner. It is further submitted that the advertisement at AnnexureI is vague and is not in consonance with the directions issued by this Court in Special Civil Application No.7726 of 1999 vide judgment and order dated 5.4.2010. It is submitted that in fact it is an attempt by internal arrangement to select their own persons. It is submitted that as can be arrayed from the advertisement at AnnexureI, the very description of the advertisement is such that the same is not workable. It is submitted that in fact that petitioner had filed representation dated 13.5.1998 and the same is received by the respondent Board. However, the same has not been given any heed to. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioner should be issued interview call letter and pending hearing of this petition, by an interim order, the respondents should be permitted to keep at least one post vacant. It is submitted that not only that the persons junior to the petitioner are called for the interview,
Chhaganbhai Baraiya. It is, therefore, submitted that the petition deserves to be allowed and if not, as prayed for, at least one seat should be kept vacant.
8. Having considered the factual matrix on the record of the petition as well as the contentions raised by the learned advocate for the petitioner read with the directions issued by this Court while disposing of Special Civil Application No.7726 of 1999 vide judgment and order dated 5.4.2010, the advertisement at AnnexureI dated 30.12.2011 is not vague. This Court while disposing of the said matter had directed that three posts which were kept in the cadre of Mukhya Sevika shall be filled in as per the Rules which existed at the time of advertisement.
9. In view of the said direction, the advertisement at AnnexureI to the petition dated 30.12.2011 clearly provides that the candidates who had applied pursuant to the advertisement dated 23.11.1998 and who were found to be eligible pursuant to the said advertisement shall be called for the oral interview between 3.1.2012 to 21.2.2012. It is further provided in the said advertisement itself that the list of eligible candidates would be placed on the notice board of the office of the Gujarat Panchayat Service Selection Board, Ahmedabad and in case if any eligible candidate is not in receipt of the call letter, such an eligible candidate should give the written application by 2.1.2012. Considering the said advertisement, it is crystal clear that the three posts which were kept vacant as per the order passed in the Letters Patent Appeal were directly affected to be filled in by this Court vide judgment and order dated 5.4.2010 passed in Special Civil Application No.7726 of 1999. It is an admitted position that the petitioner was not eligible candidate as per the earlier advertisement dated 23.11.1998. Even the learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted before this Court that the application which was filed by the present petitioner pursuant to the said advertisement was not considered as the petitioner through mistake could not submit the true copy of the experience certificate. Merely because the representation was filed on 13.5.1998 would not make the petitioner eligible candidate pursuant to the advertisement dated 23.11.1998 and therefore, the petitioner not being eligible as per the said advertisement dated 23.11.1998 cannot claim that she should be called for the interview pursuant to the advertisement dated 30.12.2011 issued in compliance with the directions issued by this Court in Special Civil Application No.7726 of 1999, as aforesaid. The petition is, therefore, misconceived.
10. The allegation that the juniors are being called also fails on the same ground as the petitioner herself is not an eligible candidate as per the earlier advertisement dated 23.11.1998 and therefore, the petitioner cannot claim that junior to her is now being called or is being called later pursuant to the advertisement dated 30.12.2011. The allegation that the petitioner is victimized is without any basis. On the contrary, if the communication dated 19.11.2009 at AnnexureK is read, the said letter was written by the petitioner herself in her capacity as President of Bharatiya Anganwadi Karmachari Mahasangh, Gujarat Pradesh to the Hon'ble Minister of Revenue with a prayer that the persons who are working in Anganwadi since 10 years may be considered for promotion to the post of Supervisor on priority. Thus, the very basis of the petition is based on a nonconsideration of the application of the petitioner way back in 1998. The petition is, therefore, meritless and the same deserves to be rejected in limine and is hereby rejected with no order as to cost.
[R.M.CHHAYA, J.] mrpandya