2020 Supreme(Guj) 401

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Biren Vaishnav, J.
Chaudhari Kaushalkumari Maganbhai & Others - Petitioners
Versus
State of Gujarat & Other - Respondents
R/Special Civil Application No. 8565 of 2017
Decided On : 19-02-2020

Point of Law:
As the appointments are to the post of Head Teachers and Rules are in conformity with the provisions of the Act, the candidates who have no experience of teaching are rightly not considered in the eligibility criteria notified in the Rules for recruitment to the post of Head Teachers. It is stated that essentially prescribed qualification is prerogative of the employer and therefore, challenge to the Rules is misconceived and unsustainable.

Headnote:

Gujarat Civil Services Classification and Recruitment (General) Rules, 1967 -University Grants Commission Act, 1956 - Section 3 - Constitution of India, 1950 -Article 226 - Petition prayers of the petitioners read as therefore humbly pray that your lordships be pleased issue a writ of or in nature of mandamus and/or certiorari and/or prohibition and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction - Petitioners while giving any appointment as Head Teacher Class in District pursuant to Advertisement - Petitioners who are Schedule Tribe candidates and who possess requisite qualification that of having passed their H.TAT examinations pray for a writ for being considered eligible for being appointed to post of Head Teachers question that requires consideration of this Court is whether petitioners who were working as Education Coordinators and were allotted to schools through two institutions Foundation and Education First Charitable Trust and providing their services to be imparting education/teaching in government school can be considered to be eligible for appointment as head teachers - Petitioners drew my attention to Head Teacher Class in Directorate of Primary Education District Primary Education Committees and Municipal Primary Education Committee Recruitment Rules - Rule which is relevant rule providing for eligibility for appointment by direct - Provided further that upper age limit may be relaxed in favor of a candidate of a Scheduled Caste Scheduled Tribe Socially and Educationally Backward Class and in favor of a Woman in accordance with provisions - Held, Court even according to say of petitioners they are not directly involved in teaching in said scheme of any primary sections - Further perusal of functions and duties of Block Resource Persons as notified in Mission also include that they are appointed for guidance to students and teachers in concerned subject so that they can understand procedures methods activities techniques and applications in various subject - Further various categories which are included in impugned Rule also clearly indicate that experience of all categories of persons who are shown in impugned rule construe as valid experience as they are mainly involved in teaching - As recruitment to post of Head Teachers job include teaching and administration in school at primary sections one of eligibility criterion notified includes experience of years teaching and all those persons included in impugned rule to consider their experience as valid experience construe a different and distinct class than compare to petitioners who are not involved in teaching - Having regard to nature of job provided to post of Head Teacher Class non inclusion of petitioners experience in impugned Rule cannot be said to be illegal and arbitrary - However is rightly contended by Assistant Government Pleader that eligibility criteria is within domain of employer - Unless it is demonstrated that eligibility criteria in Rule is illegal or arbitrary this Court is normally slow in interfering matters which relate to academic issues - Petition allowed (Para 17)

Facts of the Case:

Petitioners, who are Schedule Tribe candidates and who possess the requisite qualification viz. that of having passed their H.TAT examinations, pray for a writ for being considered eligible for being appointed to the post of Head Teachers.

On 22.01.2017, an advertisement was issued for 1000 vacancies of head teachers. From all these 1000 vacancies, 321 were reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidates. Of the 321 vacancies so reserved, 256 were backlogged vacancies which were carried for.

Finding of the Court:

Court even according to say of petitioners they are not directly involved in teaching in said scheme of any primary sections - Further perusal of functions and duties of Block Resource Persons as notified in Mission also include that they are appointed for guidance to students and teachers in concerned subject so that they can understand procedures methods activities techniques and applications in various subject - Further various categories which are included in impugned Rule also clearly indicate that experience of all categories of persons who are shown in impugned rule construe as valid experience as they are mainly involved in teaching - As recruitment to post of Head Teachers job include teaching and administration in school at primary sections one of eligibility criterion notified includes experience of years teaching and all those persons included in impugned rule to consider their experience as valid experience construe a different and distinct class than compare to petitioners who are not involved in teaching - Having regard to nature of job provided to post of Head Teacher Class non inclusion of petitioners experience in impugned Rule cannot be said to be illegal and arbitrary - However is rightly contended by Assistant Government Pleader that eligibility criteria is within domain of employer - Unless it is demonstrated that eligibility criteria in Rule is illegal or arbitrary this Court is normally slow in interfering matters which relate to academic issues.

Result: Petition allowed