In present petition, the petitioner has prayed for below mentioned relief:- “9(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS MAY BE PLEASED TO issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondent to issue fresh advertisement reserving one more post (three posts) for SEBC and one post for Scheduled Caste out of four posts, which have been advertised for recruitment/appointment on the post of Assistant Station Officer (Officer) by quashing and setting aside the advertisement dated 7.4.2011, by holding the same to be in contravention of various resolutions passed by the State of Gujarat in the matter of appointment on the post of Assistant Station Officer (Fire).”
2. It emerges from the record that the respondent Municipal Corporation issued notice/advertisement dated 7.4.2011 inviting applications for Assistant Station Officer (Fire) for four posts. It further appears that the petitioner is aggrieved by the said advertisement and has prayed that the said advertisement for selection / recruitment on the post of Assistant Station Officer (Fire) is contrary to the resolution passed by the State of Gujarat. On such premise, the petitioner union has challenged the said advertisement. It is claimed that there is violation of the reservation policy, circulars and resolutions passed by the State. Any details about the policy or resolution of the respondent Corporation are not found in the petition.
3. The respondent Municipal Corporation has filed affidavit dated 21.10.2011 wherein it is, inter alia, stated that:-
“9) With reference to para 3 of the petition, it is denied that the petitioner is entitled to any writ of mandamus, order or direction, directing the respondent to prescribe three seats for SEBC and one post for SC category as alleged. It is submitted that as per the State Government reservation policy dated 8.3.1999 and 5.9.2000 Schedule – V of the roster policy is applied. For the post of Station Officer (Fire), out of total seven posts filled, four posts became vacant due to superannuation of the concerned appointees and at present three posts are filled and the said four posts are vacant. For the said four posts, advertisement was issued keeping two posts of SEBC, one post for ST and one for general category. As per the State Government, General Admn Department resolutions dated 8.3.99 as well as 5.9.2000 out of seven posts which have been so far filled as per the roster policy, one post is required to be filled from SEBC and one post from ST candidates. Against the same at the relevant time seven post were filled from general category which resulted into backlog of one post for SEBC and one post for ST candidates. Out of the said four posts for which advertisement is issued, one post each for SEBC and ST candidates were advertised for removal of the said backlog, whereas as per the current roster policy, remaining two posts for which advertisement issued is one post for SBEC and one pot for general candidate. Thus, out of the 11 posts filled so far, i.e. seven posts filled prior and four posts for which the advertisement issued in question, two posts are to be filled from SEBC and one post from ST candidates and either posts from general candidates, against which in all seven posts were filled. The present advertisement is issued for four posts of which two posts are to be filled from SEBC, one post from ST and one post from general candidates. Thus, the advertisement is just, legal, proper and in consonance with the State Government resolutions and as per the roster policy. It is denied that three seats are required to be reserved for SEBC and one post for SC candidates for filling up the post of Asst. Station Officer (Fire) as alleged. It is denied that the advertisement dated 7.4.2011 is in contravention of the Government Resolutions as alleged. Rest of the averments and allegations are denied hereby.
10) With reference to para 4.1 of the petition, it is denied that there should have been one more post advertised in the reserved category for the candidates belonging to SEBC and one post should have been reserved for ST category as alleged.
11) With reference to para 4.2 of the petition, it is not correct to say that 10 persons have been working with the respondent corporation as Asst. Fire Officer and 5 persons have been retired as alleged. It is denied that atleast 3 candidates of SEBC and one person from SC category and one from ST category, which have remained unfilled and the advertisement is in contravention to the policy of the Government for providing reservation to different categories belonging to SEBC, SC and ST categories as alleged. It is denied that there is violation of the policy and the roster in appointment of Asst. Fire Officers as alleged.”
4. It is pertinent to note that the advertisement in question is related to the appointment in the Fire Safety Department of the respondent Municipal Corporation. The said department provides essential and emergency services and that therefore, it would always be undesirable to let the post remain vacant for long time.
5. More than one year has passed since the advertisement came to be issued and the petition was circulated, and placed for admission hearing, for the first time, after almost 4 months i.e. on 24.8.2011. At that time, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, any interim relief was not granted. Since then, the petition has been adjourned from time to time without any interim relief in favour of the petitioner.
6. As mentioned hereinabove earlier, almost 1 year has passed since the advertisement was issued and in the interregnum, there has not been any order of interim relief. Under the circumstances, in all probability, the process related to the selection and recruitment must have been over.
6.1 Having regard to the said factual aspects and also considering the fact that the post in the said department cannot be allowed to remain vacant for long time and the respondent Municipal Corporation cannot be asked to keep the post vacant for long time, the petition, at this stage, is not entertained.
6.2 If the petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of the respondent Municipal Corporation, which might have taken or which may be taken pursuant to the said advertisement and if there are any irregularities in the selection and/or recruitment, it will be open to the petitioner to take out appropriate proceedings against such action of the respondent Municipal Corporation, in accordance with law, and present order will not stand in the way of the petitioner.
With the aforesaid observations, clarification and direction, present petition stands disposed of. Notice is discharged.
(K.M.Thaker, J.) kdc