Point of law: Merely, because another view or a better view is possible, there should be no interference with or disturbance of the order passed by the Single Judge, unless both sides agree for a fairer approach on relief

JUDGMENT :

ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI, J.

1. The present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is filed by the appellants assailing the correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 24.01.2020 in the aforesaid writ petition whereby, the learned Single Judge has allowed the petition with a consequential direction to the present appellants to appoint the respondent – original petitioner to the post of ‘Shikshan Sahayak’ in the school of respondent no. 3 (respondent no. 2 herein) forthwith and in the event if no vacancy at which he was offered appointment, then appropriate posting may be given to the respondent – original petitioner on a vacant post at any other suitable place.

2. The background of facts is that the respondent – original petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, on the premise that pursuant to the advertisement issued for the post of ‘Shikshan Sahayak’ for the subjects of Maths and Science, online application was submitted as the respondent – original petitioner had cleared B.Sc., from M.S. University, Baroda in the subjects of Statistics/Maths/Physics and completed his B.Ed., degree from Hemchandra Acharya North Gujarat University, Patan. It is the case of the respondent – original petitioner that on the basis of such qualification in response to the application, the respondent – original petitioner was allowed to appear in TAT examination and thereafter was called for the round of selection and was allotted Taluka : Kharoda, District : Dahod. Though the merit is shown as 55.87%, the respondent – original petitioner was not appointed. As a result of this, the respondent-original petitioner has approached this Court by way of aforesaid writ petition and after hearing both the learned advocates appearing for the respective sides, by way of order dated 24.01.2020, the petition came to be allowed as stated above. It is this, order passed by the learned Single Judge, that has given rise to the present Letters Patent Appeal by the appellants – State authorities.

3. We have heard Ms. Shruti Pathak, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the appellants and Ms. Mamta R. Vyas, learned counsel appearing for contesting respondent no. 1.

4. Ms. Pathak, learned Assistant Government Pleader has contended that it was noticed by the appellant – authorities that though the respondent – original petitioner has completed his graduation, but was not having the prescribed relevant qualification and as such, since the degree obtained by the respondent – original petitioner was not in the concerned subject, the authority found that the respondent – original petitioner was not eligible. It was also contended that in the present selection, the concerned subjects were Maths and Science, in fact it was Maths and Science subjects alone and the respondent – original petitioner is having a degree of Bachelor in Science in principal subject of Statistics and as such, does not deserve to be considered. It was further contended that the benchmark for the requisite merit was 55.12% and the respondent – original petitioner on the basis of having secured 00.00 in graduation would have merit assessed as 50.64% and, therefore, found to be ineligible for appointment.

4.1. Ms. Pathak, learned Assistant Government Pleader has based the aforesaid contention on the basis of Rule 7 as well as Rule 11 of Rules 2011, where Rule 11 explicitly provides for the parameters of preparing the select list and as such, the relevant subject becomes the subject matter of consideration for such selection by the authority. As the respondent – original petitioner not having completed the graduation in Maths being the relevant subject, non-selection to the appointment of the respondent – original petitioner is just and proper.

4.2. For strengthening the submissions, Ms. Pathak, learned Assistant Government Pleader has tried to refer to certain documents attached to the compilation and then has referre