Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(E) To pass such order of costs and other and further orders necessary in the interest of justice."

Briefly stated, the case of the petitioner is that she is serving as Lecturer on adhoc basis in Government Engineering College at Rajkot for a little more than a year. Respondent No.2 - GPSC issued an advertisement in the month of February 2010, inviting applications from interested candidates to fill up 38 posts of Lecturers in Physics in Government Engineering Colleges. According to the petitioner, 6 posts out of the said 38 posts are reserved for female candidates. Pursuant to the advertisement, the petitioner submitted an application and appeared in the written test conducted on 11.07.2010 against Seat No.205490. The result of the written test was declared on 04.09.2010 and the petitioner was declared to have passed. According to the petitioner, the GPSC published the final list of candidates eligible to be called for interview on 14.12.2010 and the name of the petitioner found mention in the said list, whereas the seat number of respondent No.3 was not mentioned. It is the case of petitioner that while searching on the internet, the petitioner came across Notification dated 10.01.2011 containing the list of candidates to be called for the oral interview, wherein the name of respondent No.3 was shown at Sr.No.48. The petitioner also came across another list, of 23 eliminated candidates, of even date, in which the name of the petitioner is shown at Sr.No.23. The petitioner filed an application under the Right to Information Act for more information and came to know that the GPSC has issued corrigendum dated 04.01.2011 pursuant to which the subsequent Notification dated 10.01.2011, including the name of respondent No.3 and eliminating that of the petitioner has been issued. The petitioner, therefore, filed Special Civil Application No.648 of 2011, which was withdrawn by order dated 24.01.2011, as mentioned hereinabove. The prayers made in the said petition are reproduced hereinabove. However, the petitioner, immediately after the withdrawal of the above-mentioned petition, has filed the present petition with the prayers, as reproduced hereinabove.

(C) That it was not open to the GPSC to issue corrigendum dated 04.01.2011 after having included the name of the petitioner in Notification dated 14.12.2010 and to the best of the knowledge of the petitioner, the GPSC has relied upon the oral say of respondent No.3, therefore, its behaviour is contradictory and suspicious. The GPSC has been unable to render any explanation to the petitioner nor has any reply been given by the said respondent and as the oral interviews are scheduled to be held from 02.02.2011, the respondents ought to be called upon to explain their acts of omission and commission at the earliest.

III. It appears that the petitioner has made a representation to the GPSC on 27.01.2011. A copy of the same is annexed as Annexure-F, at running page-42 to the petition. Interestingly, the present petition bears the same date, i.e. 27.01.2011 and the affidavit filed with the petition has also been affirmed on 27.01.2011. The petition has been filed in the Registry of the Court on 28.01.2011. It was, therefore, not possible for the GPSC to decide the representation on the same date or till the filing of the petition, or even till 31.01.2011, when the matter was heard at length. The petitioner has not put on record, any decision by GPSC, upon her representation. It is stated by the learned advocate for the petitioner that no order has been passed. It, therefore, transpires that as no order has been passed against the petitioner, no fresh cause of action has arisen, which would entitle the petitioner to file and maintain the present petition.

This Court is constrained to note that in paragraph-3.6 at running page-6 of the petition, while mentioning the factum of withdrawal of the earlier petition, it is stated that the Court was of the view that the petitioner should approach the respondent-Commission first and in absence of respondent No.3 as party-respondent, it would not be proper to entertain the petition and the Court has permitted the petitioner to withdraw the petition for that purpose, on 24.01.2011. This is a complete misstatement of facts, designed to give a different colour to the petition. It was open to the learned advocate for the petitioner to pray for liberty to file a fresh petition after joining respondent No.3, which was not done. The earlier petition has been withdrawn with a view to approaching the respondent-GPSC. This Court has not relegated the petitioner to file a representation, as insinuated in the above-mentioned pleadings. Further, there is no prayer in the present petition for directions to the GPSC to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 27.01.2011 but the prayers are almost a repetition of the prayers made in the earlier petition.