JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Learned AGP Mr.Rohan Shah waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent nos.1 and 2. Learned advocate Mr.Mitul Shelat waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent nos.3 and 4.

2. The present writ petition has been filed seeking directions directing the respondent to appoint the petitioners as the Assistant Teachers.

3. The brief facts of the present case are that the petitioners, who belong to General Category are possessing the qualification of SSC, HSC and PTC. Vide communication dated 21.09.2016, the District Education Officer, Karelibaug, Vadodara, sanctioned total six posts of Assistant Teachers and pursuant to the same, the respondent no.3 – University, vide communication dated 23.09.2016 directed the respondent no.4 to recruit six persons for the post of Assistant Teachers after following due selection procedure as per University Rules and as per the sanction given by the District Education Officer.

3.1. Accordingly, by the advertisement dated 01.10.2016, the University invited written applications to fill up six posts of Assistant Teachers. Out of six posts, 01 post was reserved for SC quota, 01 for ST, 01 post for SEBC and 03 for general category. The petitioners filed written applications seeking appointment for the post of Assistant Teachers.

3.2. After holding recruitment process, a select list of first three candidates was declared vide Public Notice dated 17.01.2017 by the respondent no.4 - School. The names of the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 figured at Sr. Nos.2 and 3 respectively.

3.3. On 27.01.2017, the Syndicate Meeting of the Maharaja Sayajirao University of Vadodara was held, whereby the selection committee has approved the agenda (Appendix-27) regarding the appointment of the Assistant Teachers (3 posts) for the University Experimental School.

4. Learned advocate Mr.Jay Shah for the petitioners has submitted that the Syndicate had approved the appointment of Assistant Teachers for three (3) posts, however the respondent University has given appointment to only one candidate Ms.Devangi Bhanubhai Patel as Assistant Teacher (Vidhya Sahayak) vide office order dated 18.02.2017 on permanent basis. It is submitted that the petitioners were selected in oral interview at Sr.No.2 and 3 and the DEO, Vadodara had also approved the appointment of the petitioners and other candidate Ms.Devangi Bhanubhai Patel vide letter dated 21.01.2017, however the respondent-University has appointed the petitioners on ad hoc basis instead of regular basis.

4.1. Learned advocate for the petitioner has further submitted that on 26.11.2018, the petitioners made written representation to the District Education Officer, Vadodara requesting to consider the matter of the petitioners and give appointments to them for the posts in question.

4.2. It is further submitted that the respondent no.2 has erred by not appreciating the fact that as per the advertisement, the requirement was of total three (3) Assistant Teachers of General Category and in the present case, the petitioners who belong to General Category and possess all the required qualifications and the petitioners also have cleared the recruitment process and hence, they cannot be denied regular appointment. It is thus, submitted that the inaction on the part of the respondent no.3 in not giving regular appointment to the petitioners has caused grave injustice to them and this action of the respondent no.3 amounts to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

5. In response to the aforesaid submissions, learned advocate Mr.Mitul Shelat appearing for the respondent University has submitted that pursuant to the ‘No Objection Certificate’ dated 21.09.2016 granted by the District Education Officer to fill up the posts of Assistant Teachers, on 01.10.2016, the respondent issued a public advertisement inviting applications for the post of Assistant Teachers. It is further submitted that in terms of the advertisement, 6 posts were advertised for