( 1 ) THE petititoner, an educational society running secondary school at Ahmedabad, has filed this writ petition challenging the order of the Tribunal constituted under the gujarat Secondary Education Act, 1972, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") in application No. 184 of 1983 made on 30th march 1984. In the said application respondent no. 3 had challenged before the tribunal the order of the petitioner under which her services were terminated. The tribunal has declared the termination order to be invalid and inoperative in law and found the same to be made in violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 36 (1) (a) (b) of the Act.

( 2 ) IN the school run by the petititoner there were four vacancies of teachers at the relevant lime, out of which two were in the higher secondary section and two were in the secondary section. The school made application to respondent No. 4 for grant of no objection certificate to make appointment to the aforesaid four posts. Respondent no. 4, under letter dated 31st May 1983 granted necessary no objection certificate as teachers with requisite qualifications were not available even on the list of supernumerary teachers maintained by him. Out of those four posts one was in the subject of Hindi and Socially Useful Productive work. We are concerned with this post and the appointment of respondent No. 3 made thereon. The "no objection certificate" granted by respondent No. 4 to make appointment on this post clearly indicates that for the said post the required educational qualifications are B. A. with Hindi and G. B. T. C. (Gujarat Basic Training course) Respondent No. 2 was the Headmaster of the school at the relevant time. It is not in dispute between the parties that respondent No. 2-Headmaster is the father of respondent No. 3 who has been selected and appointment on the said post.

( 3 ) RESPONDENT No. 2-Headmaster of the school, advertised the said post in daily newspaper Gujarat Samachar on 2nd June 1983. In the advertisement it was clearly stated that the said post and three other posts advertised therein were reserved for scheduled Castes/scheduled Tribes and/or other backward class candidates. A copy of the advertisement has been produced by the petitioner at Annexure-P to the special civil application. Thus all those posts including the post in dispute were reserved for SC/st and other backward class candidates. Pursuant to this advertisement nine persons belonging to SC/st and backward class or baxi Panch applied for these posts. There is no dispute that out of these nine persons seven persons were possessing the requisite qualifications as laid down for the post. Respondent No. 2 has not proceeded further with that advertisement and he gave second advertisement on 9th June 1983 in the same newspaper inviting applications for those four posts including the post in dispute. In the second advertisement respondent no. 2 has not mentioned that the candidates who passed B. A. with Hindi were required to apply for the said post. In the advertisement the desired qualification mentioned was B. A. and G. B. T. C. Pursuant to this advertisement some more applications from SC/st candidates are received for the post in question. Respondent no. 2 did not also proceed further with this advertisement. He issued third advertisement on 12th June 1983. In the third advertisement it has been mentioned that persons with B. A. , G. B. T. C. or equivalent qualification were required to apply. One significant indication made in the said advertisement was that only female candidates were required to apply for the post. Thus respondent No. 2 issued three successive advertisements within a short span of time. In the last advertisement dated 12th june 1983 respondent No. 2 did not even indicate that the posts were reserved for sc/st and other backward class or Baxi panch candidates. The petitioner made statement in the petition, which is uncontroverted, that respondent No. 2 had issued the