(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJAY MANOHAR SAHAI) 1. We have heard Mr. M.J. Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Rakesh R. Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.
2. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the appellant – original petitioner challenging the judgment and order dated 28.3.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.3472 of 2012 whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed.
3. The appellant has prayed in the writ petition that the Court may direct the respondent to appoint the appellant as ‘Vidhya Sahayak’ with all consequential benefits. In support of the said request, the appellant has asserted that pursuant to an advertisement published in news paper in August-2001, she had made the application for being recruited and appointed before Dang District Primary Education Committee. The appellant has also claimed that her name was included in the list of selected candidates which was displayed by the respondent authorities. In background of such submissions, the appellant then alleged that her name was included in the select list published at the relevant time but the respondent did not issue appointment letter in favour of the appellant. Therefore, she made representation and requests. The appellant has requested for issuing appointment letter.
4. The appellant also alleged that suddenly, she received a letter from the respondent authority conveying that unless she submits certificate or letter clarifying that the institute from which she passed out was duly recognized by NCTE, her case cannot be considered.
5. So as to submit that the said stand of the respondent is not approved by this Court, learned counsel for the appellant relied on the decision rendered in Special Civil Application No.10509 of 2002, particularly relied on below mentioned observations :
“Today in response to the notice issued by this Court, Mr P.K. Jani along with Mr Rakesh Johri for NCTE appeared and stated that the institutions through which the petitioners have undertaken the course have already applied for recognition and therefore deemed recognition can be said to have been granted to these institutions. In view of the aforesaid stand of NCTE, respondents nos.1, 2 and 3 are directed to process the applications of the petitioners on merits and issue appointment orders if they are otherwise found to be eligible and they will not be denied appointment only on the ground that the institutions though which they have undertaken the course are not recognised by the NCTE, Bhopal.”
6. It is no where stated in the writ petition that the institution from which the appellant has passed NCTE examination had been recognized. It is stated that the application for recognition has been made. Further, the appellant had passed out Arts Teacher Diploma course in the year 2001 and the recognition to the institution from which the appellant had passed NCTE examination was granted in the year 2004. The said fact is clear from the certificate given by the said institution to the appellant (Annexure C to the present Letters Patent Appeal). It means that when the appellant passed out, the institution was not recognized. Therefore, the learned Single Judge or the respondents did not commit any error in not appointing the appellant. Moreover, the selection process commenced in the year 2001 – 02. After 10 years, no relief can be granted to the appellant and the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition.
7. In the result, this Letters Patent Appeal fails. We agree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. This Letters Patent Appeal is devoid of any merits and is accordingly dismissed.
8. In view of dismissal of appeal, Civil Application for stay does not survive and it is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
(V.M.SAHAI, J.) Sd/-
(S.G.SHAH, J.) Savariya