1. Rule. Mr. J.K. Shah, learned AGP appearing for respondent State and Mr. HS Munshaw, learned advocate appearing for respondent no. 3 waive service of notice of Rule.
2. The petitioners herein have prayed to quash and set aside the notification dated 18.01.2012 and the consequential action taken with reference to the said notification. The petitioners have also prayed to direct the respondents to operate the list dated 08.08.2012 which is prepared on the basis of completion of five years of a candidate as Vidhya Sahayak by quashing and setting aside the proposed selection list dated 14.08.2012.
3. It is the case of the petitioners who are working as Vidhya Sahayaks for the last five years that on 19.07.2012, the respondents prescribed schedule for the purpose of inviting applications, selection of suitable candidates and also for preparing selection list. Accordingly, the petitioners applied and on 08.08.2012 first selection list was published by respondent no. 3. In that selection list, the names of the petitioners appeared. It is further the case of the petitioners that thereafter on 14.08.2012, a further list was published which was called as temporary selection list. The petitioner filed an objections to the same as their names did not figure in the selection list dated 14.08.2012. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have preferred the present petition.
4. Mr. D.P. Kinariwala, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have completed five years as Vidhya Sahayaks and inspite of the same and the fact that the petitioners are fulfilling the educational qualifications prescribed in the notification dated 18.01.2012 coupled with the fact that the petitioners' names reflected in the select list dated 08.08.2012, their names are not reflected in the selection list dated 14.08.2012.
4.1 Mr. Kinariwala further submitted that the Education Department of the State Government issued a notification dated 18.01.2012 for making rules to provide for recruitment to the post of Head Teacher, Class-III in the subordinate service of the Directorate of Primary Education or respective District or Municipal Primary Education Committee as per which persons who are to be promoted should have worked for not less than five years in the cadre of Primary Teacher, Class III in the subordinate service as referred above. He submitted that the other qualifications were that the candidate should have passed qualified examination for computer knowledge and should have possessed educational qualifications as prescribed in Clause (b) of Rule 4 of direct selection and also should have passed Head Teacher Aptitude Test as may be prescribed by the Government.
4.2 Mr. Kinariwala submitted that the petitioners are fulfilling all the qualifications as prescribed in the notification dated 18.01.2012 and therefore were included in the selection list dated 08.08.2012. However, the exclusion of their names from the list dated 14.08.2012 is arbitrary and calls for interference by this Court.
5. Mr. JK Shah, learned AGP appearing for the respondent State and Mr. Munshaw, learned advocate appearing for the respondent no. 3 supported the stand of the respondents and submitted that the petitioners are holding requisite educational qualifications for the post of Head Teacher but are lacking experience of minimum five years as Asst. Teacher as provided by the State Government. They have drawn the attention of this Court to the affidavit in reply filed and submitted that considering the same, these petitions do not have any merits for consideration.
6. Having heard learned advocates for both the sides and having perused the papers on record, it is clear that the respondents have admitted that there was a misinterpretation with respect to the clauses of notification dated 18.01.2012 and therefore a fresh selection list was published on 14.08.2012. Therefore, after correct interpretation of the notification dated 18.01.2012, the list dated 14.08.2012 was prepared. Nothing is brought on record to show that the list dated 14.08.2012 is contrary to rules or the relevant notifications. This Court does not find any infirmity in the same. Moreover, considering the affidavit in reply filed in these petitions, this Court does not find any reason for causing interference in the matters.
7. In the premises aforesaid, petitions are dismissed. Notice is discharged.
(K.S. JHAVERI, J.) Divya//