Parghi Chandrikaben Babubhai vs State Of Gujarat & 4 Other(s)

Biren Vaishnav, J

In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the prayer of the petitioner reads as under:

"(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions directing the respondent authorities to quash and set aside the decision of respondent as cancel the interview procedure held on 14.7.2017 in connection to the advertisement dated 19.4.2017 (Annexture C ) for the post of Anganwadi Worker published vide advertisement No.Information/Dahod/18/2017;"

It is the case of the petitioner that she applied for being appointed to the post of Anganwadi Worker pursuant to an advertisement No.18/2017. She appeared for the interview and was first in the list of candidates. She, therefore, was meritorious and, therefore, ought to have been appointed.

Mr.N.D. Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that cancellation of selection process is unjustified. No reasons have been given. Admittedly, the selection procedure was not vitiated and, therefore, could not have been cancelled arbitrarily.

Mr.H.S. Munshaw, learned counsel for respondent No.5 invited my attention to the affidavit in reply filed, to suggest that the Committee headed by the Deputy Collector decided that since only two applications were received, it was necessary to issue a fresh advertisement giving wider publicity to invite larger number of candidates. The petitioner could not have right to selection. In the present case, even before such selection was made, the recruitment was cancelled.5. Considering the submissions made by learned advocates for the respective parties and considering the advertisement, the reply and rejoinder, what is evident is that the petitioner only appeared for an interview for the post on 14.7.2017. Mere appearing in the interview would not give a right to selection. Such a candidate would even be an additional disadvantage even as compared to a selected candidate who does not have a right.

In the facts of the case, if the authorities have thought it fit to issue a fresh advertisement looking to only two applications having come forth, the authorities cannot be faulted with for cancelling the process of selection.

In view of above, I find no reason to interfere with the action by the respondent authorities.8. Hence, the petition deserves to be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed with no order as to costs. Notice is discharged.