Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 4879
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
A.S. SUPEHIA, R. T. VACHHANI, JJ
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. – Appellant
Versus
PRAJAPATI GIRISHKUMAR MOGHAJIBHAI & ORS. – Respondent
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1215 of 2019 | R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13486 of 2017
For the Appellants/Petitioners: MS SHRUTI R. DHRUVE
For the Respondents: MR MANISH J PATEL, MR Y J PATEL
Qualifications for teacher appointment are strictly governed by law, and failing to comply with requirements results in invalid appointments.
Headnote:(A) Right of Children to Free Education and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 - Appointment and qualifications of teachers - The school violated NOC terms by advertising posts beyond what was sanctioned. Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) clearance is mandatory for recruitment; respondent lacked TET at application time. - Misleading representations in teacher recruitment process. (Paras 4, 11, 15)
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - High Courts must ensure compliance with statutory requirements in appointments. (Paras 10, 14)
Facts of the case:
The State challenged the Single Judge's order allowing respondents’ writ petition despite their non-compliance with required qualifications under the Act, 2009.
Findings of Court:
Recruitment process was tainted; no TET clearance means no right to appointment.
Issues: Whether the respondent meets legal qualifications for teacher appointment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that appointments must meet statutory qualifications as per the Act; failure to comply renders appointments void.
Result: Appeals allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal against single judge’s decision. (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. recruitment process and qualifications. (Para 4 , 5 , 11) |
| 3. consequences of non-compliance with educational laws. (Para 6 , 10 , 12) |
| 4. court's emphasis on strict adherence to qualification requirements. (Para 15 , 16) |
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1. The present appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, 1865, is directed against the common oral order dated 30.08.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in the captioned writ petition and allied petitions, wherein and whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petitions. By the impugned order dated 30.08.2018, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition, primarily placing reliance on the decision rendered by this Court dated 08.02.2017 passed in Special Civil Application No.21003 of 2016 in the case of Patel Dimpal Natubhai & Anr. vs. State of Gujarat.
2. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has submitted that, for the purpose of obtaining No Objection Certificate (NOC) for the appointment of new teachers, Sheth Shri K.T. Shah High School, Khedbrahma, managed by Shri Khedbrahma Kelavni Mandal, had furnished data on 01.08.2012 regarding the number of students enrolled in Standards 6th to 8th, stating that as of 31.07.2012, 602 students were studying in the said classes. Based on this data, the District Education OfÏcer (DEO), Sabarkantha, issued an NOC for the appointment of 11 teachers.
3. She has further submitted that as per prevailing norms, the District Primary Education OfÏcer (DPEO), Himmatnagar, had sanctioned only three classes for Standard 8th vide order dated 30.08.2012. However, as on 01.08.2012, the school did not have a single sanctioned class for Standard 8th. Despite that, the school applied for an NOC for the appointment of teachers for four classes of Standard 8th and admitted 263 additional students without such classes being sanctioned, which clearly indicates that the request made by the school for the additional teacher appointments was improper. It is contended that upon receiving the NOC, the school published an advertisement for the appointment of 11 teachers. However, there were material contradictions between the particulars mentioned in the NOC and those stated in the advertisement issued by the school, since the NOC allowed the recruitment of two teachers for Mathematics and Science, the school advertised for three such posts. Similarly, although the NOC had sanctioned posts for various subjects, the school issued advertisements for eight teachers in Language and Social Science. Thus, it is submitted that the respondent- School misled both – the State authorities and the applicant-
teachers, including the present respondents.
4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has further submitted that although the school was duty-bound under the NOC to appoint 11 teachers for different subjects, it in fact appointed 10 teachers for Language and one for Social Science, thereby violating the terms of the NOC and the provisions of the Right of Children to Free Education and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (in short, “the Act, 2009”). It is further submitted that this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.1216 of 2019, vide order dated 15.10.2024, had directed the Registry to inquire into the matter, and if it was found that the school was complicit along with the respondent-employee therein, to initiate appropriate criminal proceedings. Pursuant to this direction, an F.I.R. was registered against the private respondent and the school on 08.11.2024. She has further submitted that the whole recruitment procedure undertaken by the School is tainted.
5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader further submitted that the original petitioner - Prajapati Girishkumar Moghajibhai, the respondent herein had cleared the Teacher Aptitude Test (TAT), which is a qualification for recruitment to Secondary Education (Standards 9th and 10th). However, as per Clause 2(II) (1) of Go
