Point of law: Teacher – Appointment - Respondents are estopped, having allowed the petitioner all throughout in the stages of process, treating her to be eligible and offering appointment, to contend that the experience requirements was not satisfied. The petitioner having cleared all the stages, reasonably expected that she would be appointed in the district for which she had offered choice upon being asked by the respondent and where the vacancy was also available.

JUDGMENT :

SANGEETA K. VISHEN, J.

1. By this Letters Patent Appeal, the appellants have challenged the CAV judgment dated 26.2.2019, whereby, the learned single Judge has allowed the writ petition, setting aside the action of the appellants, that is, the respondents in not offering appointment to the original petitioner (hereinafter referred to as “the petitioner”) as Head Teacher (Class-III), despite availability of vacancy and despite inclusion of name of the petitioner in the selection list.

2. The facts, as is discernible from the record, are as under:

2.1 The petitioner is serving as a Teacher in Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalaya, an approved school run by the District Panchayat under Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (hereinafter referred to as “the SSA”). The petitioner has been appointed as Teacher in the said school since 9.7.2009 and barring artificial break of one or two days, the petitioner has been in continuous employment in the said school. Moreover, the petitioner has also cleared the Head Teacher Aptitude Test (hereinafter referred to as “the HTAT”).

2.2 Vide advertisement dated 22.1.2017, online applications were called for, from the eligible candidates. Accordingly, the petitioner applied on 30.1.2017 for appointment to the post of Head Teacher (Class-III). The petitioner disclosed all the relevant details including the experience and accordingly, her form came to be accepted, followed by a call letter dated 28.3.2017 and the petitioner was shown at serial no. 62 in the merit list of the reserved category. The petitioner was required to remain present before the Selection Committee on 30.3.2017. As per the rules and regulations of the appellants, the candidates having requisite qualification were only called for the purpose of district selection and since the petitioner was fully qualified, was not only included in the selection list, but was also called to offer her choice of district. Consequently, the petitioner also gave her choice of district, as Mehsana.

2.3 The petitioner was informed orally by the Selection Committee that she cannot be offered an appointment since the petitioner is working on contract basis in the school. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred the captioned writ petition before this Court seeking direction that the action on the part of the appellants – respondents, in not offering appointment in Mehsana district, despite availability of vacancy and despite the inclusion of the name of the petitioner in select list, is illegal, unjustified and arbitrary.

2.4 In the writ petition, the appellants - respondents, took a stand that the advertisement dated 21.1.2017 has been issued as per the notification, rules and regulations governing appointment to the post of Head Teacher. The State Government, relied upon the rules to contend that, it is mandatory for the appointment in question that a candidate must have five years' experience as a Teacher or Vidya Sahayak or Shikshan Sahayak, Adhyapak Sahayak, Junior Lecturer etc. in Government or grant-in-aid or non-grant-in-aid private lower primary school or upper primary school or secondary education or higher secondary education. The stand of the appellants – respondents had been that the petitioner had filled her qualification of PTC, BA, MA and has mentioned experience in different capacities. The petitioner has shown having possessing seven years, six months and seven days experience in the Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalaya, Sachana from 9.7.2009 to 26.01.2017; however, the experience is on contractual basis. Further, the experience as Mukhya Bal Sakhi, cannot be considered to be a valid experience as a Teacher.

2.5 The learned single Judge, after hearing both the parties, vide CAV judgment dated 26.2.2019, allowed the writ petition and declared that the action on the part of the appellants – respondents in not offering appointment to the petitioner as Head Teacher (Class-III) despite availability of vacancy and despite inclusion of name in selection list, is