Rajendra Madhubhai Patel vs State of Gujarat and Others

R.M. Doshit, J.—Heard the learned advocates.

The appellant, applicant for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher in a secondary school, has preferred the present Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 18th November, 2008 made by the learned Single Judge in above Special Civil Application No. 13664 of 2008.

Pursuant to the public notice, the appellant had applied for selection and appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher in Economics in the respondent No. 3, a non-government grant in aid secondary school. It appears that on the date of the interview in the month of October, 2006, only two candidates were present. The interview committee, therefore, decided not to conduct the interview. The deferred interview was held on 26th July, 2007. It is the case of the appellant that the respondent No. 5 was selected in that interview. The first interview was cancelled with a view to favouring the respondent No. 5. According to the appellant, the appellant ought to have been selected and appointed as Assistant Teacher. The learned Single Judge has rejected the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches. Therefore, the present Appeal.

Mr. Variava has submitted that the decision taken by the interview committee to cancel the interview on 28th October, 2006 was wrong and whoever was present, the interview committee ought to have conducted the interview and selected the suitable person. At the later interview held in the month of July, 2007, the persons who were not present in the first interview were present. Obviously, the second interview was held with a view to favouring the respondent No. 5. The selection of the respondent No. 5 should, therefore, be cancelled and the appellant be selected for appointment as Assistant Teacher.

We are unable to agree with Mr. Variava. The learned Single Judge has rightly rejected the challenge on the ground of delay and laches. The appellant having waited and participated in the interview held in July, 2007 cannot be permitted to challenge the decision to postpone the interview scheduled on 28th October, 2006. The challenge to the decision dated 28th October, 2006 is indeed barred by delay, laches and acquiescence. Challenge to the non-selection of the appellant is also not maintainable. On complaint made by the appellant, by order dated 25th September, 2008 made by the District Education Officer, Sabarkantha, the selection procedure held on 26th July, 2007 has been cancelled. A direction has been issued to hold the interview afresh and also to call the names from the Employment Exchange Office. In our view, the appellant has no cause of action.

In above view of the matter, the Appeal is dismissed in limine. The civil application stands disposed of.