Back
Gujarat High Court
Judgename :P.R.Gokulakrishnan, N.B.PATEL
DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER - Appellant
Versus
KANCHANBEN DAHYABHAI MISTRI - Respondent
L.P.A. 85 of 1990
Decided On : 04/12/1990
Constitution of India – Art. 32 226 320 323 – Cinematograph Act, 1909 – Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932 – Appointment Orders – Letters Patent Appeal – This Letters Patent Appeal arises out of the judgment rendered by the learned single Judge of our High Court in Special civil Application – Special Civil Application is for issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order, directing the appellant to appoint the respondents herein to the post of Pre-Primary school Teachers – There is a further prayer for issuance of a writ of prohibition or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, restraining the appellant- from filling in six posts of Pre-Primary School teachers – The learned single Judge of our High Court, after rejecting the contentions of the appellant herein, allowed the petition, directing the appellant- to issue appointment orders to the respondents herein for the post Pre-Primary School teachers, and permit the respondents to join the duties – Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has preferred the above Letters Patent Appeal – Held, The rejection of the select list in which the respondents have been put in and coming forward with a fresh advertisement to have another select list bristles with unreasonableness and arbitrariness – It is so unreasonable that it might almost be described as being done in bad faith – Having called the respondents to accept the appointment orders and at the point of handing over the said appointment orders, the authorities have gone back, and issued a fresh advertisement on unreasonable and arbitrary grounds as if the order of the Court directs them to issue a fresh advertisement – The facts discussed by us in paragraph supra clearly establish that there is no such order, directing the appellant to issue a fresh advertisement, by wiping out the respondents from the select list, which they have already prepared – There is absolutely no ground to refuse to issue the appointment orders to the respondents, who are otherwise qualified and the appellant has vacancies to take them in on the basis of the select list prepared as early as March – Where statutes, rules or bye-laws give power to the authority to be exercised for "sufficient cause", mandamus is the watchdog to see that perversity does not creep into the decision – It has to see that the authority did not act dishonestly, arbitrarily, unreasonably, vindictively or capriciously – In the light of these facts, the learned single Judge of our High Court has correctly given directions to issue appointment orders to the respondents for the post of Pre-Primary School Teachers, for which the respondents have been selected – For all these reasons, Court do not find any ground made out to interfere with the order passed by the learned single Judge of our High Court and accordingly, this Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed – Letters Patent Appeal Dismissed
( 1 ) THIS Letters Patent Appeal arises out of the judgment rendered by the learned single Judge of our High Court in Special civil Application No. 7654 of 1988. Special Civil Application No. 7654 of 1988 is for issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order, directing the appellant to appoint the respondents herein to the post of Pre-Primary school Teachers. There is a further prayer for issuance of a writ of prohibition or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, restraining the appellant-Nagar prathmik Shikshan Samiti from filling in six posts of Pre-Primary School teachers. The learned single Judge of our High Court, after rejecting the contentions of the appellant herein, allowed the petition, directing the appellant- nagar Prathmik Shikshan Samiti, Vadodara Municipal Corporation to issue appointment orders to the respondents herein for the post Pre-Primary School teachers, latest by 28/12/1989 and permit the respondents to join the duties. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has preferred the above Letters Patent Appeal.
( 2 ) THE short facts of this case for the purpose of disposing of the letters Patent Appeal are that the respondents are candidates for the post of Pre-Primary School Teachers. On 26/12/1986, the appellant invited applications for the post in question for preparing the select list. The respondents got selected and by letter dated 17/03/1987, all the respondents were informed that they were included in the select list and that each of the respondents must attend the office of the appellant on 12/06/1987 at 1. 00 p. m. for receiving the order of appointment. This letter dated 17-3-1987 further stated that if any one of the respondents does not remain present at the aforesaid time in the office of the appellant, his name shall be cancelled from the select list. There is a further averment in the said letter that within two months, each of the respondents should learn harmonium. When the respondents reported to the office of the appellant herein at the specified time and date, they were not given the appointment order. Even though the respondents were selected at the relevant time and put in the selection list, they were not given the appointment order on the ground that in Special Civil Application No. 1398 of 1987, an order was passed on 17-4-1987 to the effect that fresh advertisement for filling up these posts has to be given. In this connection we can refer to the filing of the Special Civil Application No. 1398 of 1987 by one Bhavnaben S. Gosai on 7/04/1987. In that Special civil Application, Bhavanben S. Gosai has prayed for quashing the selection of 7 respondents mentioned therein on the ground that they were ineligible 3 for being considered for the post in question. The 7 respondents in that Special civil Application, along with the respondents herein, were in the select list. In the above said petition, i. e. Special Civil Application No. 1398 of 1987, the respondents herein were not parties and they were not aware of any proceedings thereof. In that Special Civil Application No. 1398 of 1987, an interim order was passed on 17-4-1987, after issuing rule in the main Special Civil Application, to the following effect :" Rule. The Respondents shall not give appointment orders to the following candidates: 1. Manjulaben Govindlal Joshi, 2. Gitaben Vipulbhai Jani, 3. Nirmla Asharam Shrimali, 4. Charulata Jethalal Makwana, 5. Bhanumati Somabhai Rathod, 6. Sushilaben Sureshchandra Goswami, 7. Champaben Jotibbhai Patel. However, the Respondents are permitted to give fresh advertisement for filling up these posts. Pursuant to the advertisement if the standard prescribed in the advertisement permits the above mentioned seven candidates shall also have liberty to apply". Interpreting this interim order to mean that the High Court permitted the appellant- board to give fresh advertisement for filling up these posts, wherein the respondents in this L
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
