SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Guj) 1138

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
NIKHIL S. KARIEL, J.
MAMTA MANSUKHBHAI CHOTHANI - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT - Respondent
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6036 of 2021
Decided On : 29-11-2021

Advocates Appeared:
For The Appellant : MR HS MUNSHAW, RUSHABH H MUNSHAW
For The Respondent: MR UTTKARSH SHARMA ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER/PP

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Teachers and Head Masters of Registered Private Secondary and Higher Secondary Schools (Procedure for Selection) Rules, 2011 - Petitioner who is working as an Assistant Teacher in Upper Primary School and who possess qualification of M.A. (Economics) and B.Ed Degrees and had also cleared Teachers Aptitude Test (TAT), had applied for post of Assistant Teacher in Higher Secondary and Secondary Sections of Non-Government Granted Schools in both English and Gujarati Medium published by respondent vide an advertisement - Advertisement stipulated that candidates desiring to apply for post of Assistant Teacher in Higher Secondary Section had to fill up online application which would be opened - Held, decision of respondent authorities of not issuing formal appointment order is declared as illegal and bad-in-law - In view thereof, respondents more particularly respondent is directed to appoint petitioner as Assistant Teacher in the subject of Economics in Gujarati medium and give appropriate posting to petitioner after giving choice of posting to her as per her merit position if contemplated under law - Petitioner shall also be entitled to benefit of seniority from date person who would be placed below petitioner in the select list had been given appointment - That petitioner would not be entitled to any arrears of wages whereas for purpose of calculating salary contemplated date of appointment till actual date of appointment shall be treated as ‘notional’ and after appointment petitioner would be entitled to regular salary as if petitioner had been appointed on contemplated date - Such exercise would be carried out by respondents within a period of six weeks from date of the judgment - Petition stands allowed.

ORDER :

1. Heard learned Advocate Shri H.S. Munshaw for learned Advocate Shri R.H. Munshaw on behalf of the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Shri Utkarsh Sharma on behalf of the respondent State.

2. Issue Rule returnable forthwith. Learned AGP waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent no.1- State. With the consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing.

3. Short facts leading to filing of this Court are as under:

    3.1 The petitioner who is working as an Assistant Teacher in the Upper Primary School at Shri Dhebar Kankarwaswadi Primary School, Village: Dhebar, Taluka: Bhanvad, District: Dev Bhoomi Dwarka and who possess the qualification of M.A. ( Economics) and B.Ed Degrees and had also cleared the Teachers Aptitude Test (TAT), had applied for the post of Assistant Teacher in Higher Secondary and Secondary Sections of Non- Government Granted Schools in both English and Gujarati Medium published by the respondent no.2 vide an advertisement dated 14.01.2021. The advertisement stipulated that candidates desiring to apply for the post of Assistant Teacher in Higher Secondary Section had to fill up online application which would be opened from 15.01.2021 to 24.01.2021. It would be pertinent to mention here that the instructions attached with the advertisement inter alia stipulated that if a mistake is committed in filling up the online application form then the same would not be considered. It would also pertinent to mention here that time was also given to the candidates to edit their applications till the last date of filling up the form i.e 24.01.2021. It appears that the petitioner while submitting the online form had selected the option of ‘No’ instead of option ‘Yes’ for the question as to whether the candidate is working in any teaching position in any Government School . On the other hand since the documents required to be attached for a candidate who was holding a Teaching position in a Government School included obtaining NOC ( No Objection Certificate) from the District Primary Education Officer, the petitioner had applied for the same and vide his certificate dated 22.01.2021, District Primary Education Officer (DPEO), Devbhoomi Dwarka District Panchayat inter alia certified the fact that the petitioner was in fact working in the school referred to herienabove. 3.2 Relevant here would be the fact that the petitioner had requested and had obtained the certificate prior to the date of filling up of the online application form. It appears that the candidature of the petitioner had been considered and the petitioner was placed at Sr. No. 48 and a list of document verification prepared by the respondent, the list being prepared in order of merit as could be made out in the last column of the list where the candidates have been placed in descending order as per the merit positions they had been placed. A total of 1132 candidates were called for document verification and whereas at that stage the petitioner had submitted an undertaking in form of an affidavit as required by the respondent dated 05.03.2021 where also the petitioner had mentioned that she was working in the above named school since 27.03.2017. That the petitioner had attended the documents verification process and whereas the respondent no.2 published the provisional merit list -1 on 19.03.2021 in which the name of the petitioner did not figure. As a matter of fact another list had been published by the respondent no.2 on the same day i.e. 19.03.2021 being list of disqualified candidates and whereas name of the petitioner was found at Sr. No. 5 of the list. It was mentioned in the said list that since the petitioner did not mention in her online application that she was working as a Teacher in Government School whereas the petitioner had mentioned the same in her affidavit therefore her application has been rejected and it has been recommended for taking punitive action against the petitioner. The petitioner had immedia

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top