Point of Law: Service Matter - Selection Committee under the Rules cannot be permitted to contend at a later stage that requisite educational qualification was not satisfied, more particularly when the details were examined in the selection process

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Dipak Dave for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Jayneel Parikh for the respondent State through video conference.

2. Rule. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Jayneel Parikh waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent-State through video conference.

3. Brief facts of the case are as under :

3.1) The petitioner applied for the post of teacher in Social Science subject in Government Aided Higher Secondary School pursuant to the advertisement dated 12.4.2016 issued by respondent no.2. The petitioner was possessing the qualifications of BA with Psychology as main subject, M.A. with Psychology Clinical as main subject, Diploma in Computer Science, B.Ed. with subject of History and Geography, PGDCA and M.Ed with Sociology. The petitioner was selected and her name appeared in the merit list. The petitioner had selected Junagadh District as her choice of District and accordingly came to be allotted Junagadh District in third round of selection.

3.2 After verification of the documents by respondent no.3, the petitioner came to be issued appointment letter dated 08.05.2017.

3.3 It is the case of the petitioner that when the petitioner went to resume the duty, she was informed by the principal of respondent no.4 school that they have received telephonic instructions from the office of District Education Officer not to allow the petitioner to resume duty. The petitioner also received call from office of respondent no.3 -District Education Officer that she should not resume the duty until further instructions.

3.4 The petitioner thereafter made representations before the various authorities but no reply has been received by the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that candidates below the petitioner in the merit list have been allowed to resume the duties with effect from 5.6.2017, however, the petitioner was not permitted to join the duty.

3.5. Being aggrieved by such action on part of the respondents authorities, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.

4. This Court (Coram ; Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.G. Shah, As His Lordship was then) passed the following order on 21.07.2017 :

“The appointment of the petitioner herein is subject to the final outcome of this petition irrespective of filing a detailed affidavit-in-reply. The respondents will have to disclose on oath on the returnable date that when they have called the petitioner for appointment in school by order dated 8th May, 2017, then why they have denied or restrained the petitioner from joining the service.

Notice returnable on 2.08.2017. Learned AGP waives service of notice for respondent- State.”

5. This Court (Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Biren Vaishnav) in similar facts as that of the petitioner allowed the Special Civil Application No.18767/2017 vide order dated 24.1.2020, whereby the respondents were directed to appoint the petitioner therein on the post of “Shikshan Sahayak” and in the eventuality of no vacancy being there in the school, further directed the respondents to give the posting to the petitioner on a vacant post at any other suitable place. The said order dated 24.1.2020 came to be challenged by filing Letters Patent Appeal No.138/2021 and this Court (Coram : Hon’ble the Chief Justice Mr. Justice Vikram Nath and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashutosh J. Shahstri) vide judgment dated 23.2.2021 dismissed the appeal filed by the respondent- State.

6. In yet another matter having similar facts as that of petitioner being Special Civil Application No.6721/2017, this Court (Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.V. Anjaria) allowed the Special Civil Application No.6721/2017 vide judgment dated 26.2.2019, whereby the action on part of the respondents in not offering appointment to the petitioner therein as Head Teacher (Class-III) despite availability of vacancy and despite inclusion of name of the petitioner in the selection list, was quashed and set aside and the respondents therein were direct