D. M. DHARMADHIKARI, J.

( 1 ) THIS Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 28th August, 2000 passed in Special Civil Application No. 8830 of 2000, by which the learned single Judge has dismissed the said Special Civil Application summarily at the admission stage. The issue involved in the present litigation is regarding appointment to the post of Director, Gujarat Institute of Educational Technology (GIET ).

( 2 ) THE appellant-original petitioner moved this Court by the said Special Civil Application challenging the appointment of respondent No. 3 herein to the aforesaid post of Director by way of Notification dated 20th July, 2000. It is the say of the appellant that he is holding the qualifications of M. Sc. as well as Diploma in Drama and is having experience of Production and Management in different media, like Audio and Video, which is one of the requirements for the post of Director. The appellant was appointed as Assistant Station Director, Doordarshan, Ahmedabad in 1994.

( 3 ) GIET is established by the State of Gujarat to assist the Department of Education in the implementation of its educational policies and major educational programmes through educational technology at all levels, and for that purpose, it undertakes to produce educational programmes for media, such as T. V. , Radio, Audio-Video Cassette Player, films, etc. As per the rules, the qualification for the post of Director is prescribed in Rule 22. As per the same, GIET shall have a full-time Director, who shall be appointed by the State Government on deputation or on a contract basis. The relevant Rule is as under :-

( 4 ) IT is the say of the appellant-original petitioner that he was appointed as Officer on Special Duty on deputation in the respondent No. 1-Institution on 21. 7. 1998 and he was also entrusted with the duties of the Director of the respondent No. 1-Institute. It is also the say of the appellant that considering his performance, his appointment was extended upto 22. 7. 2001 by order dated 21. 9. 1999. In order to appoint the Director, a letter dated 24. 1. 2000 was circulated, inviting applications for appointment to the said post. The appellant also applied for the same with others, and one of them was respondent No. 3 herein. The Committee appointed under Rule 22 interviewed the candidates and on the basis of their recommendations, they recommended the name of the present appellant at serial No. 1 for appointment to the said post, and the name of the present respondent was at serial No. 2. Since the State Government decided to appoint respondent No. 3 herein, who was at serial No. 2 in the merit list prepared by the Selection Committee, the appellant herein challenged the said action by filing the aforesaid Special Civil Application No. 8830 of 2000. The said challenge was made on the ground that since the Expert Committee found him more suitable for the post, as he was placed at Serial No. 1, it was not open for the State Government to bypass the recommendation of the Selection Committee lightly, as, normally, the rank in the merit list was required to be considered by the Government. Accordingly, the appointment of respondent No. 3 herein was challenged by the appellant-original petitioner by filing the said Special Civil Application.

( 5 ) THE learned single Judge, after considering the petition as well as the argument of the appellant, dismissed the said Special Civil Application summarily without issuing notice to the respondents. The learned single Judge came to the conclusion that respondent No. 3 was appointed as Director of the institution on deputation basis and that the appellant was appointed on deputation initially in the Institution as Officer on Special Duty. It was found that as respondent No. 3 is appointed to the post of Director of the Institution on deputation, none of the legal and fundamental rights of the appellant-original petitioner is infringed. The learned single Jud

Click Here to Read the rest of this document