Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 11800

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Nirzar S. Desai, J
Kartikkumar Prakashchandra Chaudhari – Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat – Respondent
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3005 of 2026 | CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR DIRECTION) NO. 1 of 2026 | R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5407 of 2026 | R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3723 of 2026 | R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3269 of 2026 | CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR INTERIM RELIEF) NO. 1 of 2026 | R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3294 of 2026 | CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR INTERIM RELIEF) NO. 1 of 2026 | R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5978 of 2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Vidhi J Bhatt, Vaibhav Vyas, Shakti Mathews, Yash Vala
For the Respondents: Aakash Gupta

Interim participation in a recruitment process may be permitted for candidates with pending eligibility challenges, provided they submit an undertaking that such participation creates no equity or claim to appointment, thereby ensuring that final legal success does not become a futile exercise.

Headnote:(A) Recruitment Process - Interim participation - Challenge to qualifying examination - Candidates failing to clear eligibility test challenged the examination methodology - Pending final adjudication, a recruitment drive was announced - Court allowed petitioners to participate in the recruitment process subject to an undertaking that such participation does not confer any legal right or equity - Balancing of convenience - If petitioners succeed in their legal challenge, denying interim participation would render their petitions infructuous - Judicial interest warrants granting an interim opportunity where no financial burden is imposed on the state. (Paras 6, 7, 9, 13, 15)

Facts of the case:
A group of candidates who failed a teacher eligibility examination initiated legal challenges regarding the conduct, evaluation, and results of the said test. During the pendency of these petitions, the authorities published an advertisement for the recruitment of primary teachers. The petitioners sought permission to participate in this ongoing recruitment process, fearing that if they were barred from applying, they would be unable to secure appointment even if they ultimately succeeded in their legal challenges.

Findings of Court:
The court held that allowing the petitioners to participate, conditional upon the submission of a formal undertaking that no equity or right to appointment is created by such appearance, balances the interest of justice. It was noted that this approach ensures the legal petitions do not become moot or infructuous while protecting the respondents from claims of entitlement prior to the final judicial outcome.

Issues: Whether candidates with pending legal challenges against a qualifying examination result can be permitted to participate in an ongoing recruitment drive on an interim basis.

Ratio Decidendi: Interim participation in a recruitment process is permissible to prevent a petition from becoming infructuous, provided the candidates explicitly undertake that such participation confers no vested rights, equity, or claim to appointment, especially when the participation imposes no financial burden on the state.

Result: Application allowed.

Table of Content
1. procedural context for hearing related petitions simultaneously. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. nature and background of tet examination grievances. (Para 4 , 5)
3. conflicting arguments concerning interim recruitment participation. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 10)
4. balancing justice to prevent litigation from becoming infructuous. (Para 9 , 11 , 12 , 13)
5. specific conditional order for interim participation in recruitment. (Para 14 , 15)

1. Today in the morning, learned advocate Mr. Shakti Mathews made a mention for circulation of the matter stating that he filed the petition yesterday i.e. 22.4.2026 and his matter is almost similar to the present set of petitions and the prayers are also more or less similar and, therefore, he was granted permission to circulate the said petition today itself, just to maintain uniformity and just to ensure that it may not cause any heart burning to those litigants merely because they were late in approaching this Court and they will be deprived if any relief which this Court may grant in other set of petitions which are pending before this Court since long. In this background, he was permitted to circulate Special Civil Application No.5978 of 2026 today itself.

2. Learned advocate Ms. Vidhi J. Bhatt and Mr. Vaibhav Vyas states that fresh advertisement for recruitment of Primary Teachers has been published on 1.4.2026 and last date for submission of form is 24.4.2026 i.e. tomorrow.

3. Learned advocate Ms. Vidhi J. Bhatt further states that in Special Civil Application No.5407 of 2026, no notice has been issued by this Court and affidavit-in-reply on behalf of the State Government is filed in Special Civil Application No.3723 of 2026. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Aakash Gupta states that the said reply may be treated as reply in respect of all these petitions.

Hence, issue notice in Special Civil Application No.5407 of 2026 and 5978 of 2026 returnable forthwith. Learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents.

4. The grievance of all the petitioners / applicants is that in the examination of TET conducted in the year 2025, the petitioners fell short of some marks and, therefore, could not clear the said examination. The petitioners in this group of petitions have raise multi-fold grievance in respect of the manner in which the TET examination was conducted, about printing mistakes and about different versions of questions an answers in respect of different medium of examination i.e. English, Gujarati and Hindi. The petitioners have also questioned the answers which can be said to be correct answers of the questions.

5. In the petition preferred by learned advocate Mr. Shakti Mathews, the petitioners have challenged Government Resolutions dated 30.7.2024 and 10.9.2025 and it is their case that those petitioners had already cleared the TET examination prior to 2021. However, the validity of TET examination is upto 5 years and they have failed to clear the examination in the year 2025 and that is how the said petition is different from rest of the group of petitions. However, the rest of the petitions are identical and grievance of the petitioners of those petitions is also identical.

6. Learned advocates Ms. Vidhi J. Bhatt and Vaibhav Vyas appearing for the respective petitioners in the present group of petitions, under instructions, state that most of the petitioners are falling short by atleast 2 marks and, therefore, if ultimately they succeed in their respective petitions and if they are not allowed to participate in the present recruitment drive, which will be conducted pursuant to the advertisement issued on 1.4.2026 for filling up around 11,000 vacancies of Primary Teachers, despite succeeding in the main petitions, they will not get fruits of their success. It was also contended by learned advocates Ms. Vidhi J. Bhatt and Vaibhav Vyas that the present petitioners are ready and willing to give an undertaking in dup

Click Here to Read the rest of this document