Point of Law: Once the learned Single Judge having seen the records had come to the conclusion that the industry was not functioning after January, 1995, there is no justification in entering a different finding without any further material before the Division Bench. The Appellate Bench ought to have noticed that the statement of MW 3 is itself part of the evidence before the Labour Court. Be that as it may, in an intra court appeal, on a finding of fact, unless the Appellate Bench reaches a conclusion that the finding of the Single Bench is perverse, it shall not disturb the same. Merely, because another view or a better view is possible, there should be no interference with or disturbance of the order passed by the Single Judge, unless both sides agree for a fairer approach on relief

JUDGMENT :

Heard learned advocate Mr. Ronith Joy for learned advocate Mr. A.J. Yagnik for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. K.M. Antani for the respondents-State and learned advocate Mr. Meet Shah for learned advocate Mr. A.D. Oza for the respondent No.4 through video conference.

1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. K.M. Antani waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and learned advocate Mr. Meet Shah waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent No.4

2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

“(A) Be pleased to Issue a writ of Mandamus or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and by that means direct respondent authorities to issue appointment order to petitioner herein for the post of Shikshak Sahayak at Vanthali, District Junagadh as selected by her, in the interest of justice.

(B) Be pleased to restrain respondent No.3 from filling up one post of Shikshak Sahayak and keep the post vacant in School allotted to the petitioner herein by Respondent No.3 in the interest of justice.

(C) Be pleased to award the cost of this petition.

(D) Such other and further relief/s which the Honourable Court may deem fit, just and proper be granted in the facts and circumstances of the present case and in the interest of justice.”

3. Brief facts of the case are that :

3.1. The respondent No.2-Commissioner of Schools published an advertisement dated 12.04.2016 inviting on-line application from Graduate/Post-Graduate and B.Ed candidates for the post of Shikshak Sahayak for the subjects of Gujarati, Hindi, English, Accountancy and Business etc. in Non-Government granted Higher Secondary Schools for teaching in Gujarati as well as English medium. The petitioner who belongs to SEBC(female) category being eligible and possessing requisite qualifications, submitted on-line application to the respondent No.2 pursuant to the advertisement published by the respondent No.2.

3.2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner cleared Bachelor of Commerce with Accounts and Computer Science subjects and Master of Commerce with Costing and Accounts and B.Ed from Saurashtra University.

3.3. The petitioner also appeared in the Teachers Aptitude Test (TAT) Examination and cleared the same with Accounts subject. The petitioner was selected in the District Selection List of Candidates who have been selected as Higher Secondary Teacher (Grant-in-Aid Schools) and her name appeared in the said list with total merit of 64.44 marks and was selected to Junagadh District in Open Category.

3.4. The petitioner remained present before the respondent No.3 on 03.12.2016 pursuant to the intimation posted on the website of the respondent No.1 on 02.12.2016 informing the candidates to personally remain present for the allotment of the School at which the petitioner was to be appointed. The petitioner opted for Nagar Panchayat School, Vanthali, District: Junagadh.

3.5. It appears that thereafter respondent No.3 issued appointment orders to about 18 candidates who were possessing the Degree Certificates issued by the Universities situated in the State of Gujarat. The Degree Certificate of the M.Com issued to the petitioner by Saurashtra University was also sent for verification, however, the petitioner was not issued appointment order by the respondent No.3 even though she was selected and her name appeared in District Selection List declared by the respondent No.2. The petitioner therefore applied for necessary information under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The petitioner by letter dated 19.02.2016 requested the respondent No.3-District Education Officer to issue appointment order. The petitioner also submitted representations on 20.12.2016 and 23.03.2017 to the Commissioner of Schools and Secretary, Education Department respectively with request to issu