Point of Law: There cannot be any relaxation in the terms and conditions of the advertisement unless such a power is specifically reserved. Such a power could be reserved in the relevant Statutory Rules.

JUDGMENT :

1. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged appointment letter dated 10.06.2016 issued in favour of the respondent appointing her on the post of coordinator-cumcook. By the order dated 27.07.2016, this Court has granted ad-interim relief to the effect that the appointment order in favour of the respondent no.5 shall be subject to final orders, which may be passed in the writ petition.

2. On 06.02.2019, the Court has specifically observed that the respondent no.5 though served, has chosen not to appear before this Court and a last chance was given. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, the respondent no.5 is not represented by anyone.

3. The short facts of the present petition are that the petitioner as well as the respondent no.5 applied to the post of coordinator-cum-cook as per advertisement dated 11.05.2016. The said advertisement mentioned specific criteria, which reads as under:-

1. That the post was for woman candidate

2. That the candidate must have cleared SSC examination.

3. That the candidate must be a local resident.

4. That any person who has a job in Central Government or State Government or in any Panchayat or Anganwadi which is a public undertaking of the Central or State Government or is holding any honorary post then, his wife/husband, respectively, son/daughter/dependent would not be entitled for recruitment.

4. Accordingly, the petitioner and respondent no.5 applied for the aforesaid post and the respondent no.5 was selected whereas the petitioner was not selected.

5. Learned advocate Mr.Darshan Dave for the petitioner has submitted that though the petitioner has secured more percentage in SSC examination and she is also local resident, the respondent no.5 has been appointed de hors the provision of advertisement. He has submitted that the respondent no.5 does not fulfill the condition no.2 as well as the condition no.8 as specified in the advertisement, which read as under:-

2. The person appointed as administrator in this selection should have studied up to SSC and should be a native of the same village, but if such a person is not found in the village, the person who has passed Std-7 can be appointed as an administrator, but must be a native of that village.

8. Employees, spouses, sons, daughters or dependents of employees who are on full or part time duty in a Panchayat or Anganwadi or any honorarium under a public enterprise under the jurisdiction of the State Government or the Central Government and the State Government or the Central Government shall not be appointed.

5.1 He has submitted that the respondent no.5 is not a local resident of the village and hence, in violation of the aforesaid condition mentioned in the advertisement, the respondent no.3 – Mamlatdar, Panchmahal issued an order appointing the respondent no.5. In support of his submissions, learned advocate Mr.Darshan Dave has placed reliance on the judgment passed in the case of Sanjay K. Dixit vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in 2019 (17) SCC 373. He has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bedanga Talukdar vs. Saifudaullah Khan reported in AIR 2012 SC 1803.

6. Learned AGP Mr.Rohan Shah by placing reliance on the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no.3 has submitted that after the recruitment process, when it was found that the respondent no.5 was having higher qualification of Sy.B.A. and hence, she was selected as coordinator-cum-cook in the Mid-Day Meal Scheme Centre No.29, Village Mora, District Panchmahal. He has placed reliance on the Government Resolution dated 18.05.2011 and has submitted that the petitioner can approach Deputy Collector under the provision of Government Resolution dated 18.05.2011, in case of any grievance.

6.1 It is submitted that the respondent no.5 is married to Bhaveshbhai P. Panda, who is resident of village Mora and therefore after marriage with the respondent no.5, she can be said to have been residing with the husband