Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/7457/2005 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7457 of 2005
======================================
RAJENDRAKUMAR
L JOSHI C/O.BABULAL MOHANLAL RAVAL - Petitioner(s)
Versus
G.E.B.
& 1 - Respondent(s)
======================================
Appearance
:
MR SAURABH J MEHTA for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
Ms MAYA DESAI for Respondent(s) : 1,
NOTICE
SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) :
2,
======================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE R.H.SHUKLA
Date
: 11/08/2008
ORAL
ORDER
Heard
learned advocate Mr. Saurabh Mehta for the petitioner.
2. The
present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Art. 226 of
the Constitution of India for the prayer that writ of mandamus or any
other appropriate writ or direction may be issued directing the
respondents to give appointment to the petitioner to the post of Jr.
Assistant or any other suitable post available with the
respondent-Board.
3. The
facts of the case, briefly stated are, that the petitioner had
applied pursuant to the advertisement given by the respondent-Board
in 1984 for Apprenticeship and he completed the Apprenticeship
training and thereafter was appointed as Apprentice Commercial Clerk
from 31.3.1984 to 30.3.1985. Thereafter, he cleared the trade test,
but as the petitioner had attained the age of 29 years, the
appointment could not be made to the post of Jr. Assistant or Clerk
and was, therefore, appointed as Meter Reader. The petitioner also
appeared for the written test for the post of Meter Reader and
thereafter he was working as Meter Reader.
4. The
petitioner, therefore, challenges that thereafter when the select
list was prepared as he was also selected and he was at Sl. No. 9 he
was not given appointment and other persons who are similarly
situated, and who are also over aged have been considered for
appointment and therefore the action of the respondents is arbitrary
and discriminatory. He has also stated that thereafter the post of
Meter Reader was upgraded to the post of Jr. Assistant and as he was
not fulfilling the criteria he has been denied the appointment to the
said post which is challenged in the present petition.
5. As
it transpires from the pleadings and correspondence along with, it is
not in dispute, as reflected in the communication at Annexure-E which
is a letter dated 31/12/2001 that the petitioner was over aged
having crossed the age of 29 years and therefore his name was removed
from the waiting list for the post of Jr. Assistant (General).
However, he was called on 18.3.1994 for the written test for the post
of Meter Reader and also for the oral interview on 30.3.1994. As he
has cleared both the tests, the selection committee had selected him
and he was at Sl. No. 9. The said select list was operated for the
candidates up to Sr. No. 6 and as there was no vacancy available of
the Meter Reader, he was not offered appointment and he was conveyed
that as and when the vacancy is available he would be intimated.
However, it transpires that the said post of Meter Reader was
upgraded to the post of Jr. Assistant and as reflected in the
communication dt. 14.5.2004 at Annexure-G, it is clearly stated that
as the post of Meter Reader is upgraded to the post of Jr. Assistant,
he cannot be appointed. It is also stated that he was selected for
the post of Meter Reader and the select list was prepared. However,
due to lack of vacancies the appointment was not given and thereafter
as the post has been upgraded as Jr. Assistant, he cannot be
appointed or no appointment was offered to him as Meter Reader.
6. Therefore,
though it may have adversely affected the petitioner, but in view of
the settled legal position that nobody can claim the appointment as a
matter of right, the petitioner who was allowed to participate in the
written test and interview for the post of Meter Reader was in fact
selected at Sl.No.9 in the select list but was not offered
appointment due to non-availability of vacancy at that time.
However, before the vacancy occurs and could be offered appointment
in future, the post of Meter Reader itself was upgraded to the post
of Jr. Assistant and therefore the impugned communication was made to
him that now no appointment could be made as Meter Reader and he
cannot be appointed in the post of Meter Reader. Therefore, the
petitioner who has been selected for the post of Meter Reader, who
could not be offered the appointment due to lack of vacancy, cannot
now make a grievance or make a claim for appointment to the post of
Jr. Assistant.
7. Learned
advocate Mr. Mehta for the petitioner has also referred to the order
of this court in Special Civil Application No. 4454 of 2003. However,
the same view has been expressed observing that if the select list
is not operating due to change in circumstances, the petitioner
cannot claim any right to be appointed on the post for which he was
selected, particularly when the post itself does not remain in
existence after the upgradation. It is in these circumstances the
present petition deserves to be dismissed.
The
petition stands dismissed accordingly. Notice is discharged.
(Rajesh
H. Shukla, J.)
(hn)
Top