IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that specific subject qualifications are essential for teaching positions, and equivalence determinations are within the purview of expert bodies.

ORDER :

Vaibhavi D. Nanavati, J.

1. Heard Mr. Nilesh I. Jani, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Chaitanya S. Joshi, learned advocate appearing for the respondent no.2 and Ms. Pooja Ashar, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent No.1- State.

2. By way of the present Petition, petitioner herein has challenged the action of the respondent no.2, whereby, the petitioner’s right to appear before the Interview Committee, though having secured requisite marks in written examination, has been deprived. The print-out of the said result taken from the website of the respondent no.2 is duly produced at Annexure- A and the petitioner herein has prayed for the following reliefs:

“(A) Be pleased to allow this petition.

(B) Be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing the respondent to allow the petitioner in the interview for the post of Assistant Professor- Botany (Class-II) as the petitioner is having requisite qualification.

(C) Be pleased to direct the respondents to consider that the Bio Science-Plant Science is equivalent to the Botany as per the certificate issued by the South Gujarat University.

(D) Pending admission and final hearing of this petition, the petitioner may be allowed to appear in the interview for the post of Assistant Professor- Botany (Class-II) and result of which may be reserved till final outcome of this petition.

(E) Be pleased to grant any other and further relief as the facts and circumstances of this case, in the interest of justice.”

3. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition reads thus:

3.1. The petitioner herein is a Ph.D. and Post Graduate (M.Sc.)with Bio-Science (Plantation), who had applied for the post of Assistant Professor (Botany) in science college at Bhathana (Vesu), Surat, pursuant to the advertisement issued by the respondent no.2, being advertisement No. 86/2016-17 for the recruitment of Assistant Professor, Gujarat Education Service, Class-II of various subjects, in Government Arts, Commerce and Science college.

3.2. The petitioner herein was allowed to appear in the written examination, wherein, upon the result being declared on the website, it was stated that the roll number of the petitioner was 101000055 and had secured passing standard but the requirements of the advertisement was not satisfied, more particularly, the petitioner was not educationally qualified, fior for which, reliance is placed on the order dated 03.05.2016 passed by the Court in Special Civil Application No. 9773 of 2015. In view of the aforesaid, the petitioner was not qualified for the interview.

4.1. Mr. Nilesh Jani, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner placed reliance on the certificate of equivalence issued by the Veer Narmad South Gujarat University, which is duly produced at Annexure-B, wherein, it was certified by the Head, Department of Bio-sciences, Veer Narmad South Gujarat University, Surat, on 09.01.2018 that the petitioner’s specialization in M.Sc. Bio-science (Plant Science) is equivalent to Botany.

4.2. Mr. Jani, learned advocate placing reliance on the aforesaid Certificate dated 09.01.2018 submits that in light of the aforesaid certified issued by the Head, Department of Bio- sciences, Veer Narmad South Gujarat University, Surat, petitioner’s degree in M.Sc. Bio-science which is equivalent to Botany, the petitioner is required to be considered as eligible for the post of Assistant Professor in Botany, pursuant to the advertisement as referred above.

4.3. Mr. Jani, learned advocate, during the course of hearing, has placed reliance on the communication issued by the respondent – State dated 05.02.2020, wherein, by the said communication in para-3 it is stated that, in case of one Dr. Milvi Vyas, the equivalence of degree has been considered by the respondent.

4.4. Placing reliance on the aforesaid, it is submitted that in an identical case, the respondent – State has issued t