(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE) The petitioner has approached this Court with this petition, making following prayers:-
"A. Your Lordship be pleased to admit and allow the present petition of the petitioner seeking administrative justice and under the Provision of All India Services Act 1951 r/w Indian Administrative Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954, in the interest of natural justice.
B. Your Lordship be pleased to set aside the oral impugned order on dated 16/11/11 (Information given through the RTI Act Annexure G), which is defective, bad in law and against the administrative justice.
C. Your Lordship be pleased to direct Re.no.3 & 4 allow and except the second application at annexure J dated 26/12/11 and to appeared in the written Examination and also to face the personal interview in the interest of natural justice.
D. Your Lordship be pleased to provide and fulfill, to protect the fundamental rights as provided under Article 309, 341 of the Constitution of India. And to get the protect by way of granting ad interim stay on the wide publication at annexure I dated 17-23/11/11 in the interest of natural justice.
E. Your Lordship be pleased to grant any other relief and further reliefs as may be deemed fit and proper."
2. The petitioner's name was sent to the respondent-authorities by the Employment Exchange for recruitment on the post of Lower Division Clerk. He was an eligible candidate in the category of scheduled Caste candidates. The respondent-authorities, however, subsequently decided to invite applications after giving advertisement on a larger scale. Before deciding to give a wide publicity for inviting applications for the posts vacant, it appears that a provisional select list was prepared by the respondent-authorities, wherein the petitioner's name figured. However, no further action was taken, no final select list was prepared and decision was taken to have the procedure de novo. The petitioner has applied pursuant to the advertisement and the procedure is yet to commence. Subsequently, having realised that he is now age-barred, he has approached this Court with this petition.
3. We have heard learned advocate Mr.Ghotra for the petitioner. He submitted that the petitioner has now become age-barred and has lost opportunity of appointment because of the decision on the part of the respondent-authorities to have the recruitment procedure afresh. The second fold of his argument was that the respondent-authorities did not respond to the information sought under The Right to Information Act nor did the respondent-authorities return his original documents, which has deprived him of appointment with Dena Gujarat Gramin Bank and hence this petition may be entertained.
4. In our view, none of the reliefs sought by the petitioner can be granted, as no right of the petitioner, as per the settled proposition of law, is violated. If the respondent-authorities deemed it proper, before finalizing the select list, to have the recruitment procedure widely published so that more number of candidates would be available for selection, they were justified in doing so. This was done before finalizing the select list. Apart from the fact that even if the select list was finalized, the candidates on the select list do not enjoy any indefeasible right of being appointed.
5. So far as the petitioner losing of an opportunity of being appointed with Dena Gujarat Gramin Bank on account of non-return of his original documents by the respondent-authorities for a period of about three months, as is alleged, is concerned, the petitioner may pursue the remedy before the appropriate forum. In fact, no relief is sought by the petitioner in this petition in that regard.
6. The petition, therefore, must fail and stands dismissed.
[A.L.Dave,J.] [C.L.Soni,J.]
-patel Top