1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the order passed by the Gujarat Affiliated Colleges Services Tribunal, Ahmedabad [for short "the Tribunal"] in Application No. 74 of 1992, dated 25.02.2011, whereby the said application was allowed with a direction to grant approval as regards appointment of the respondent no. 1 from the date he joined the respondent - College.
2. The facts in brief are that in pursuance of the advertisement published in the daily news-paper for appointment to the post of Junior Clerk in the respondent - College, respondent no. 1 applied for the same and was called for the interview on 06.09.1990. However, since no candidate from S.C. and S.T. was selected, the respondent College vide letter dated 14.09.1990 asked the District Social Welfare Officer, Ahmedabad to supply the list belonging to S.C. and S.T. category. Accordingly, the District Social Welfare Officer, furnished the list vide order letter dated 08.10.1990. However, the said list was not considered by the respondent College and again on 19.09.1990, another advertisement was published inviting applications from S.C./S.T. for the same post, wherein respondent no. 1 was selected and appointed as a Junior Clerk vide order dated 01.05.1991. It is the case of respondent no. 1 that though at the time of interview, the Selection Committee was framed and the representative of petitioner herein was present, the petitioner refused approval for the appointment of respondent no. 1. Being aggrieved by the said action, respondent no. 1 preferred Application No. 74 of 1992 before the Tribunal, which came to be allowed vide order dated 25.02.2011. Hence, this petition.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. On perusal of the record, it transpires that at the time of interview in the year 1990, the Government Representative namely, Dy. Commissioner, Foods and Drugs Control remained present as one of the Member of the Selection committee and the Selection Committee unanimously selected respondent no. 1. Therefore, after following due procedure, the petitioner cannot raise objection for appointment of respondent no. 1 in the service of respondent College. Looking to the facts of the case, it will not be appropriate to set aside the appointment of respondent no. 1 after a long period of 19 years. Thus, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is just, appropriate and legal and I do not find any reasons to disturb the same. It is, however, observed that if candidate from S.T. category is available, it will be open for the petitioner - State to insists the management to appoint candidate from S.T. category.
4. In view of the above, the petition is dismissed summarily.
[K.S.
JHAVERI, J.] /phalguni/ Top