Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(GUJ) 27159
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV, J
PANKAJKUMAR MADHAVJIBHAI AKBARI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9961 of 2017
The court affirmed that specialized science degrees qualify candidates for teaching posts, emphasizing that eligibility criteria and weightage for qualifications are distinct and should be applied based on rules in force at the time of recruitment.
Headnote:(A) Gujarat Secondary Education Regulation, 1974 - Recruitment Rules of 2012 - Educational qualifications for Shikshan Sahayaks - Petitioners holding degrees in specialized branches of science challenged their exclusion from eligibility for teaching posts - Court found that the qualifications held by petitioners satisfied the eligibility criteria set forth in the recruitment rules, and the denial of appointment was unjustified. (Paras 2.2, 4.1, 4.6)
(B) Legal principles regarding eligibility and weightage - The weightage for educational qualifications should not be confused with eligibility criteria, which are independently established. The court emphasized that the qualifications must be recognized as per the rules in force at the time of application. (Paras 5.3, 5.4)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners, qualified in various branches of science, were denied appointment as Shikshan Sahayaks despite meeting the educational requirements specified in the recruitment advertisement. They contended that their qualifications were equivalent to those required for the posts. (Paras 1, 2.3)
Findings of Court:
The court ruled in favor of the petitioners, stating that the respondents' failure to issue appointment letters was unjustified, and that the qualifications of the petitioners were valid under the existing rules. (Paras 4.1, 7)
Issues: The primary issues involved whether the petitioners' qualifications met the eligibility criteria for Shikshan Sahayaks and whether the subsequent amendments to the regulations could be applied retrospectively. (Paras 4.1, 9.2)
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the qualifications held by the petitioners were sufficient for eligibility, and the action of the respondents in denying appointment letters was unlawful. The clarificatory nature of the regulations was recognized, underscoring their retrospective effect. (Paras 4.6, 6.1)
Result: The petitions are allowed with consequential benefits to follow, and the respondents are directed to issue appointment orders to the petitioners forthwith. (Paras 4.1, 10)
ORAL ORDER
1 All these petitions have been filed by the aspirants to the posts of Shikshan Sahayaks. In Special Civil Application No. 9961 of 2017, the petitioner has a qualification of B.Sc in Industrial Chemistry, in Special Civil Application No. 9962 of 2017, the petitioner has a qualification of B.Sc in Bio-Technology whereas in Special Civil Application No. 9964 of 2017, the petitioner has a qualification of B.Sc in Bio-Chemistry.
For the purposes of this order, facts of Special Civil Application No. 9961 of 2017 are considered.
2.1 An advertisement was issued in January 2017 inviting applications for appointment on the posts of Shikshan Sahayaks in Government Secondary Schools. It was in all for 1335 posts in different subjects out of which 647 posts were advertised for the subject of Mathematics / Science teachers.
2.2 The advertisement, in accordance with Recruitment Rules of the year 2012 stipulated that in order to be eligible for appointment on the post in question, a candidate should possess educational qualification of Bachelors Degree in Arts or Science or Commerce and a Bachelors Degree in Education.
2.3 According to the petitioners, since they were holding the qualifications of the branch of Science, irrespective of it being either Bio-Technology or Industrial Chemistry or Bio-Chemistry, they applied for the posts in question. Call letters were issued to appear before the District Selection Committee.
2.4 It is the case of the petitioners that after having appeared before the Selection Committee, they were not permitted to join. Written representations were made. However, according to the petitioners, they were orally informed that since they did not possess Bachelors Degree of Science in the concerned subjects, they were not eligible to be appointed. They, therefore, approached this Court by filing petitions. While admitting all these petitions, since the total number of petitioners in all these petitions is four, by way of interim order, four posts have been ordered to be kept vacant.
2.5 The affidavit-in-reply filed by the Assistant Director, Commissioner of Schools, when perused, would indicate that the primary objection of the authorities was that for the purposes of recruitment of Shikshan Sahayaks, since the petitioners did not possess a graduate or a post graduate degree in the concerned subject, they were not considered as eligible for being appointed on the post.
3. It is the case of the petitioners as submitted by Mr. Vaibhav Vyas, learned advocate for the petitioners that even in the case of Industrial Chemistry when the judgement of the learned Single Judge was challenged before the Division Bench, the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No. 183 of 2020 filed by the State dismissed the same on 22.08.2024. Paras 14 to 18 of the decision read as under:
“14. At this stage, we may refer to the marksheet of the respondent – candidates of their post-graduation degree. The document at Page No. 14 is the degree, which is of Master of Science. In the said degree it is clarified that the candidate possesses Master of Science in Industrial Chemistry which is unquestionably one of the specialized branches of Chemistry. The appellant – State has in fact, admitted that there cannot be post-graduation degree in Chemistry subject only since the candidate has to opt for a specialized subject and in the present case, the candidates have opted for ‘Industrial Chemistry’. If the submissions advanced by the State is accepted then it would lead to an absurd and anomalous situation since the intention of the Rules more particularly the appendix on which reliance is placed by the appellant – State, cannot defeat the very purpose of recruitment. Thus, the appellant – State cannot deny 10 marks as prescribed in the Appendix on the basis of post- graduation degree in Industrial Chemistry.
15. It appears that after the recruitment process was over, there were various writ petitions filed before this Court on the issue of possession
