Gujarat High Court
New English High School Trust vs State Of Gujarat & 2 on 1 July, 2013
Author: C.L. Soni
Bench: C.L. Soni
NEW ENGLISH HIGH SCHOOL TRUST....Petitioner(s)V/SSTATE OF GUJARAT C/SCA/8874/2004 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8874 of 2004 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8875 of 2004 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.L. SONI Sd/- ========================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? No 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? No 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? No =========================================================== NEW ENGLISH HIGH SCHOOL TRUST Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 2 ================================================================ Appearance: MR BIREN VAISHNAV for MR HJ NANAVATI, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner MR NEERAJ ASHAR, ASSTT GOVT PLEADER for the Respondents ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.L. SONI Date : 01/07/2013 COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Both the petitions are filed by the same petitioner and the challenge is against two different orders though of the same date, refusing to accord approval to the selection of the candidates for the posts of Teacher in Gujarati and Hindi subjects respectively.
2. It is the case of the petitioner Institution that after seeking permission of the concerned authority, Selection Committee was constituted, having one representative of the concerned authority and the Selection Committee after inviting applications through the public advertisement and after conducting interview, selected the candidates for the posts of Teachers and sent for approval of respondent No.3 but respondent No.3 refused to give approval to such selection on the ground that interview calls were not sent to the candidates whose names were in the list of the Employment exchange and there was no wide publicity given for inviting applications through the public advertisement. It is further case of the petitioner that the school management had challenged the above order of not granting approval before respondent No.2- Commissioner of Mid-day Meals and Schools, Gujarat State. However, respondent No.2 confirmed the order of respondent No.3 and further directed to give publicity in newspaper having wide circulation and then to hold interview afresh after sending interview call letters to the applicants of new applications as also to the candidates whose names were in the list of the Employment Exchange. It is the case of the petitioner Institution that public notice was given in daily newspaper inviting applications and there is no provision for sending interview calls to the candidates of Employment Exchange and therefore, once having permitted the formation of the Selection Committee by the concerned authority and once the Selection Committee has undertaken the process of interview and selected suitable candidates on comparison of their merits, the respondents were not justified in refusing to grant approval to the selection of such candidates.
3. The petitions are opposed by reply affidavits. It is pointed in the reply filed in Special Civil Application No.8874 of 2004 that the public advertisement is required to be given in newspaper having wide circulation, which was not followed. It is further pointed out that the Selection Committee is required to prepare a list of candidates at least 7 times the number of the posts advertised and there is no compliance of such Rule. It is further pointed out that the five candidates were called for interview, out of which, two candidates had applied from one place and recruitment process was suspicious in nature and not in consonance with NOC granted by respondent No.3- District Education Officer. In the affidavit-in-reply filed in Special Civil Application No.8875 of 2004, it is pointed out that the advertisement was not given in the newspaper having wide circulation. Only eight applications were received. It is further stated that only three candidates remained before the Selection Committee and out of three candidates, two candidates remained present without original certificates. Therefore, only one candidate remained present before the Selection Committee. In view of such fact situation, the authority has rightly directed not to give approval to the petitioner Institution for selection of such candidates.
4. I have heard learned advocates for the parties.
5. Learned advocate Mr. Biren Vaishnav for Mr. H.J. Nanavati for the petitioner Institution submitted that once respondent No.3 had granted NOC to the petitioner and based on that, once Selection Committee was formed with representative of the concerned office of the District Primary Education Officer, respondent Nos.3 and 2 ought not to have refused the selection of candidates made by the Selection Committee for the purpose of teachers in Gujarati and Hindi subjects. Mr.Vaishnav submitted that neither NOC issued by respondent No.3 nor even the resolution of the Government providing for selection of teachers contain any provision for sending interview call letters to the candidates whose names appeared in the list of Employment Exchange. Mr. Vaishnav submitted that the petitioner school had held open interview after inviting applications through public advertisement given in daily newspaper having wide circulation and followed the entire selection process for the purpose of selecting candidates for the posts of teacher and therefore, it was not open to the respondent authorities to disapprove such process undertaken by the Selection Committee simply on the ground that no interview call letters were issued to the candidates of the Employment Exchange and there was no wide publicity given by the petitioner Institution before making selection for the post in question. Mr. Vaishnav submitted that the petitioner is not alleged to have manipulated the selection process nor even is alleged to have undertaken the selection process for the post of teachers contrary to the Rules for selection of such teachers. Mr. Vaishnav submitted that after selecting the candidates on the basis of the interview conducted by the Selection Committee, the petitioner Institution had sent entire record of selection to the respondents and the respondent authorities did not find any illegality in the selection process undertaken by the Selection Committee and therefore, there was no good reason for the respondents not to approve such selection especially when the petitioner Institution immediately required to have teachers in the subjects of Gujarati and Hindi. Mr. Vaishnav thus urged to allow these petitions and to direct the respondents to approve the selection made by the Selection Committee for the purpose of appointment to the post of teachers in Gujarati and Hindi subjects in the petitioner Institution.
6. As against the above arguments, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Neeraj Ashar appearing for the respondents submitted that there was no wide publicity given for filling up the posts of teacher. Mr. Ashar submitted that when the list of selected candidates required at least 7 times the number of posts and when only 5 to 8 candidates appeared and out of them, only 4 candidates could appear for interview for the post of teacher in Gujarati subject and one candidate could appear for interview for the post of Teacher in Hindi subject, it could not be said that there was fair selection process for the purpose of appointment to the post of teachers. Mr. Ashar submitted that simply because NOC was given to the petitioner school for undertaking the selection process and simply because one representative of the Government was part of the Selection Committee, that itself is no ground to approve the selection made by the Selection Committee if the concerned authority is of the opinion that such selection made by the Selection Committee was not in consonance with the recognized mode of selection. Mr. Ashar submitted that what is required by the impugned order is to give wide publicity and to invite more applications so as to have more meritorious candidates for the posts of teacher in educational Institution and there was nothing wrong in such decision taken by the concerned authority. Mr. Ashar submitted that no candidate who appeared in the interview before the Selection Committee has come forward to seek appointment based on the selection made by the Selection Committee. Mr. Ashar, therefore, submitted that the challenge made by the petitioner Institution is just to see that it can give appointment to the candidates who could not be said to have faced competitive selection process. Mr. Ashar urged not to interfere with the decision of the State Government at the instance of the petitioner Institution especially when more than 8 years have already passed.
7. Having heard learned advocates for the parties and having perused the record of the case, it appears that though NOC was granted to the petitioner Institution to undertake selection process for recruitment to the posts of teacher in Gujarati and Hindi subjects, but at the end of the selection process, when respondent No.3 found that the selection was not on competitive merits as no other candidates were invited for such selection, respondent No.3 asked the petitioner Institution to send call letters to more persons having their names in the Employment Exchange and then to select suitable and meritorious persons from amongst the competing candidates. However, when the said order passed by respondent No.3 was challenged before respondent No.2, respondent No.2 further provided to give wide publicity in newspaper and then to issue call letters to the new applicants with old applicants as well as to the persons having their names in the Employment Exchange and then to make selection based on comparative merits of such candidates.
8. It is surprising that the petitioner Institution is aggrieved by such decision taken by the respondent authorities instead of desiring to have meritorious candidates for the post of teachers in the educational institution.
9. It is required to be noted that no candidate who had appeared before the Selection Committee has come forward claiming appointment based on selection process undertaken by the Selection Committee.
10. It is further required to be noted that the respondent authorities have found that the public advertisement given was not in the newspaper having wide circulation. The respondent authorities have also found that maximum four candidates appeared for selection to the posts of Teacher in Gujarati and only one for Hindi subject. Having thus found what is stated above, if the respondents have directed the petitioner Institution to invite more applications by giving advertisement in newspaper having wide circulation and to invite more candidates from the Employment Exchange for the post of teachers in the petitioner Institution, in my view, no illegality could be found in such decision of the respondent authorities.
11. It is now well settled position of law that appointment in public employment as also in educational institution has to be on the basis of applications invited through public advertisement so as to have the best, suitable and meritorious candidates in such employment. What is done by the respondent authorities is in consonance with the public policy and in public interest. The petitioner Institution cannot have any grievance against such decision taken by the respondent authorities. Therefore, the petitions being bereft of any merits are required to be dismissed. Accordingly, both the petitions are dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated forthwith.
Sd/-
(C.L. SONI, J.) omkar Page 7 of 7