JUDGMENT :

MAULIK J. SHELAT, J.

1. Heard Mr. K. P. Champaneri, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. P. S. Champaneri, learned Advocate for the petitioner, Ms. Forum Shah, learned AGP for the respondent No.1-State and Mr. Viral K. Shah, learned Advocate for respondent No.6.

2. The present writ petition is filed under Articles 14, 19 and 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:

“A That this Hon'ble Court will be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the appointment of respondent no.6 for the post 'Teacher' in respondent no.2 school.

B That this Hon'ble Court will be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or directions in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions directing Respondent No.2 to give appointment to the petitioner at place of Respondent No.6.

C That this Hon'ble Court will be pleased to quash and set aside order dated 22/07/2010 passed by The Gujarat Higher Secondary Educational Tribunal in Application No: 53/2009.

D That this Hon'ble Court will be pleased to pass such other and further orders as the nature and circumstances of the case may arise.”

3. SHORT FACTS:

3.1. The petitioner, along with respondent No. 6, had applied for the post of Shikshan Sahayak-Hindi, in pursuance to advertisement dated 08.06.2008 issued by the respondent- authority in a daily newspaper, i.e., Nutan Saurashtra Newspaper. It is not in dispute that the petitioner, as well as respondent No. 6, possess the requisite educational qualifications, i.e., M.A. (Hindi) and B.P.Ed. Both appeared for the interview conducted by a five-member committee constituted by the Respondent No.4 – District Education Officer. As per the final result, respondent No. 6 secured 24.31 marks whereas the petitioner secured 23.77 marks. Accordingly, respondent No. 6 was given the appointment, which is challenged by way of this petition.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONER:

4. Mr. Champaneri, learned Advocate for the petitioner, has vehemently made the following submissions:

4.1. The respondent No. 6 was wrongly given 2.30 marks under the head of work experience by the respondent-authority, which is contrary to Appendix-2 prepared by the Gujarat Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Board (hereinafter referred to as "the Board") vide its letter dated 09.10.2003.

4.2. The respondent has committed a serious error in calculating the marks for work experience of respondent No. 6, contrary to the aforesaid Appendix-2, which resulted in denial of appointment to the petitioner as a teacher.

4.3. It is undisputed fact that, as per the aforesaid Appendix-2, one mark will be calculated as per the Board result of the school of the particular subject, i.e., Hindi in question. It is also undisputed fact that for the years 2007 and 2008, there was no Board result available so far as Hindi subject of the school, wherein, respondent No. 6 imparted education as a teacher. In this set of circumstances, considering the overall school result of the Board examination for calculating the marks towards Experience of respondent No. 6 for said years, is contrary to the aforesaid Appendix-2.

4.4. The respondent authority is incorrect in its submission that it has awarded appropriate marks under head of work experience to respondent No. 6 by placing reliance upon minutes of the meeting dated 24.02.2005 of the Board. The minutes of the aforesaid meeting would only indicate that in a case where there is no class of Standard 10 available, in such circumstances, for the concerned year, the overall Board result can be considered for calculating the marks.

4.5. Since the concerned school wherein respondent No. 6 was serving as a teacher had a 10^th Standard class, there was no reason for calculating the marks under head of experience as per the Board examination of the said years. Even otherwise, the marks calculated by the respondent, i.e.,