IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
A.S. SUPEHIA, MAUNA M. BHATT, JJ.
State Of Gujarat & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Vaidya Amitkumar Ashwinkumar & Anr. – Respondent
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 183 of 2022 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1232 of 2018 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022 In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 183 of 2022 With R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 560 of 2022 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1123 of 2018 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022 In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 560 of 2022 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1123 of 2018 With R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1123 of 2018 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9315 of 2004
Decided on : 22-08-2024
Education - Teacher Recruitment - Teachers and Head Masters of Registered Private Secondary and Higher Secondary Schools (Procedure for Selection) Rules, 2011 - The court interpreted the eligibility criteria for teacher appointments, emphasizing the distinction between general and specialized degrees, and upheld the learned Single Judge's decision to grant marks based on the candidates' qualifications.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves appeals against a judgment allowing candidates' petitions for teacher appointments despite their degrees not meeting the stated criteria, specifically regarding the allocation of marks for their post-graduate degree in Industrial Chemistry.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the learned Single Judge correctly interpreted the rules regarding the allocation of marks for post-graduate degrees, clarifying that the candidates' degrees should not be disqualified based on the specialization.
Issues: The main issue was whether the candidates' post-graduate degree in Industrial Chemistry qualified them for additional marks under the recruitment rules, despite the State's argument that it did not meet the criteria of being in the 'concerned subject'.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the term 'concerned subject' in the recruitment rules should be interpreted to allow for specialized degrees, affirming that the candidates' qualifications warranted the allocation of marks as per the rules.
Result: The appeal was dismissed, upholding the learned Single Judge's order for the candidates' appointment.
JUDGMENT :
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1. ADMIT. Learned advocate Mr. Hardik Jani waives service of notice of admission on behalf of the respondent No. 1 and learned advocate Mr. Meet Shah waives service of notice of admission on behalf of respondent No.2. With consent of the respective parties, the present matters are taken up for final hearing today.
2. The present appeals emanate from the common judgment and order dated 26.08.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in the captioned writ petitions, wherein and whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the petitions filed by the respondent – candidates seeking appointment to the post of Shikshan Sahayak/Teacher in the Grant-in-aid Higher Secondary Schools.
3. The facts in brief as recorded by the learned Single Judge are that, pursuant to the recruitment undertaken by the State for the appointment to the post of Teacher in the Grant-in-aid Higher Secondary Schools, the original petitioners after clearing the selection process, were not appointed for the reason that their degrees in Graduate and Post Graduate do not fulfill the criteria of notification dated 11.02.2011, wherein the Teachers and Head Masters of Registered Private Secondary and Higher Secondary Schools (Procedure for Selection) Rules, 2011 (for short ‘the Rules’) are promulgated. It is the case of the State that as per the Appendix-I(3), the respondent – candidates are not entitled to additional 10 marks for their degrees of Post Graduate since they have cleared the post-graduation in the subject of ‘Industrial Chemistry’. It is contended that the graduation degree of the respondent – candidates is in ‘Chemistry’, whereas the post-graduation degree is in ‘Industrial Chemistry’. Since, they were not offered appointment, they filed the captioned writ petitions and the learned Single Judge allowed the same.
4. At the outset, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Sahil Trivedi for the appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge has erred in granting the relief to the respondent - candidates by undertaking necessary exercise of comparing their degrees, which is impermissible, as per the decision of the Supreme Court. He has submitted that the issue with regard to equivalence of degree ought not have to be examined. In support of his submissions, learned Assistant Government Pleader has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Sohrab Khan V./s Aligarh Muslim University and Others, (2009) 4 SCC 555 and judgment dated 06.08.2024 of the Supreme Court passed in Civil Appeal No. 4468 of 2013 in the case of Shifana P. S. V/s. State of Kerala and Ors.
5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has submitted that the petitioners-respondents had also placed reliance on the Government Resolution dated 21.12.2017, which does not have retrospective effect since the subject of ‘Industrial Chemistry’ at the post-graduation level was only introduced vide said resolution, whereas the recruitment process is prior to that and is of the year 2016. Thus, learned Assistant Government Pleader has submitted that the learned Single Judge fell in error in directing the appellant – State Authorities to appoint them to the post of Shikshan Sahayak/Teacher in the Grant-in-aid Higher Secondary Schools.
6. In response to the aforesaid submissions, learned senior advocate Mr. G. M. Joshi with learned advocate Mr.Hardik Jani appearing for the respondent No. 1 has submitted that the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge does not require any interference as the same is appropriately passed. At the outset, learned senior advocate Mr. Joshi has pointed out the Resolution dated 21.12.2017, which is clarificatory in nature and has submitted that the intention of the State Government in introducing such resolution was that the candidates like the respondents, who possess postgraduation degree in Industrial Chemistry, can be appointed to the post and their cases cannot be excluded on the bas
The court established that specialized degrees can qualify for marks in teacher recruitment, emphasizing the need for a contextual interpretation of educational qualifications.
Point of law: The word “equivalent” must be given a reasonable meaning. By using the expression “equivalent” one means that there are some degrees of flexibility of adjustment which do not lower the ....
Once the learned Single Judge having seen the records had come to the conclusion that the industry was not functioning after January, 1995, there is no justification in entering a different finding w....
Appointment – In field of education, Court of Law cannot act as an expert normally – Whether or not a student/candidate is possessing requisite qualification should better be left to educational inst....
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 fai....
In the absence of power being of the administrative power of the State to have binding effect as Law. It is true that merely because some officers issue some instructions, by itself cannot be said to....
The employer has the right to prescribe qualifications suitable for the post, and the court cannot go into the issue of correctness of qualifications prescribed.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.