IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that compliance with procedural requirements in public appointments is essential, and subsequent policy changes cannot retroactively invalidate prior valid appointments.

JUDGMENT :

Vaibhavi D. Nanavati, J.

1. Heard Mr. Dipen Desai, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and Ms. Nidhi Vyas, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent – State.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition are as follows:

2.1. The petitioner herein is a charitable Trust registered under the provision of the Bombay Public Trust Act and is running Post Basic Secondary Ashramshala at Gorad, in Data Taluka of Banaskantha District.

2.2. As per the scheme framed by the respondent – State, an Ashramshala is formed for the purpose of educating students of primary and secondary level in the rural and tribal areas. The students studying in the said Ashramshala and also the staff of the said Ashramshala are required to stay their 24 hours a day. The petitioner herein had satisfied the requirement of the said scheme. As per the said scheme of the State Government, Ashramshala must possess at least 5 acres of land on which the vegetables, etc., i.e. to be consumed by the students and their staff for their food, and the said food is to be grown at the said land of Ashramshala. For the aforesaid, for growing the said vegetables, a post of Gardener is sanctioned, who is required to take care of the agriculture activities, like growing vegetables, etc., for the students and the staff who are studying in the Ashramshala.

2.3. on 24.09.1996, one Shri R.P. Rajput, was earlier appointed as Gardener in the Ashramshala run by the petitioner Trust. On 29.05.2008, said Shri Rajput submitted his resignation and left the job of Gardener and in view thereof the said post of Gardener became vacant. The petitioner Trust therefore sought N.O.C. from the respondent authorities for appointing new Gardener.

2.4. On 02.03.2009, the respondent No.2 – Commissioner, Tribal Development Department issued N.O.C. for appointment of Gardener by conducting regular selection procedure. On 09.05.2009, pursuant to the said N.O.C., the petitioner Trust issued advertisement in daily newspaper inviting applications for the post of Gardener from eligible candidates.

2.5. The names of the eligible candidates were also called for, from the Employment Exchange, pursuant to which the Employment Exchange also sent names of 30 candidates, for being called for interview. The petitioner received applications from 14 candidates, pursuant to the said advertisement. In view thereof, petitioner sent call letters to the candidates, who had applied for interview for remaining present in the interview, which was to be held on 18.07.2009.

2.6. The interview was held on 18.07.2009, wherein, the regularly convened selection committee, which included the officer of Ashramshala, found one Shri Champabhai Kikabhai Rabari to be most meritorious candidate and selected him for the post of Gardener.

2.7. On 18.07.2009, the petitioner trust by way of a resolution of even date, resolved to appoint Shri Champabhai Kikabhai Rabari and appointment order came to be issued on 07.09.2009 to Shri Champabhai Kikabhai Rabari.

2.8. On 06.10.2009, as per the conditions stipulated in the N.O.C. of the respondent no.2, more particularly, condition no.23, the petitioner trust submitted proposal to the respondent authorities alongwith all necessary papers for approval of the appointment of the Gardener.

2.9. It appears that, the pending the present petition, the respondent no.2 vide order dated 31.01.2011, rejected the petitioner’s proposal for grant of sanction to the appointment of the Gardener, relying upon the government resolution dated 25.10.2010 which provides that the State Government has cancelled all the vacant posts of teaching and non-teaching staff of the Ashramshala of the State of Gujarat. By way of the draft amendment, the said order dated 31.01.2011 passed by the respondent no.2 is also the subject matter of challenge.

2.10. The aforesaid communication dated 06.10.2009 and 31.01.2011 were not considered by the respondent authorities, which has resulted in f