ORDER :

1. Heard learned advocate Ms. Dhruti Pandya for learned advocate Ms. Kruti Shah on behalf of the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Sahil Trivedi on behalf of the respondent – State and learned advocate Mr. Swapneshwar Goutam on behalf of respondent no.5.

2. Issue Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocates for the respondent respondents waive service of rule on behalf of the said respective respondents.

2.1. With the consent of parties, the petition is being taken up for final disposal.

3. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:-

“(A) Admit and allow this petition;

(B) Issue appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent no.2 and 3 to give approval to the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Clerk cum Typist from the date of his appointment i.e. 13.04.2022;

(C) Issue appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent nos.1 to 3 to release and pay the salary with the interest at the rate of 18% per annum to the petitioner from the date of his appointment and continue to pay the same;

(D) Pending admission, final hearing and disposal of this petition, direct the respondent no.2 and 3 to pay the arrears of the salary from 13.04.2022 and further be pleased to pay regular salary;

(E) Grant such other and further relief as thought fit in the interest of justice.”

3.1. It is the case of the petitioner that he had applied for selection pursuant to an advertisement dated 12.02.2014 issued by the respondent no.5 for selection to the post of Clerk-cum-Typist with the respondent no.5 institution which is a grant-in-aid (for disabled) institution.

3.2. It appears that the petitioner having participated in the selection process which was done in the presence of District Employment Officer, Aravalli at Modasa had been selected and had been given appointment vide communication dated 12.04.2022. It appears that while the petitioner has been working on the post from the said date since his appointment had not been approved, the petitioner had not been granted salary till date and hence, the present petition.

4. Learned advocate Ms. Pandya for the petitioner would submit that respondent no.5 institution had taken all steps as required, prior to the advertisement and even after selecting the present petitioner and whereas it is submitted that inspite of the concerned respondents having been intimated/informed, the respondents have not granted approval to the appointment of the present petitioner.

4.1. It is submitted by learned advocate Ms. Pandya that the respondents more particularly respondent no.3 had initially rejected the application for approval inter alia on the ground that the selection of the petitioner was not in consonance with the recruitment rules in force. It is submitted that the institution had once again in detail submitted an application dated 23.05.2023 intimating to the respondent no.3 as regards the process undertaken by the respondent no.5 before selecting the present petitioner and requesting for approving the selection of the present petitioner and whereas, vide a communication dated 07.08.2023, the respondent no.2 had also confirmed the non-approving of the selection of the present petitioner more particularly on the ground that the selection process was not in accordance with the requirement of the recruitment rules insofar as the education qualifications are concerned.

4.2. Learned advocate, at this stage, would draw the attention of this Court to the recruitment rules in question i.e. “Gujarat Non-Secretariat Clerk, Class-III, Recruitment Rules, 2014.” The education qualifications as per the said recruitment rules was that the candidate having passed the higher secondary school certificate examination conducted by the Secondary and/or Higher Secondary Education Board or possess an equivalent qualification recognized as such by the government. Learned advocate would submit that as such, the 2014 recruitment rules had been amended vide the 2019 amen