ORDER :

Nikhil S. Kariel, J.

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. KB Pujara with learned advocate Mr. Pareshkumar Trivedi on behalf of the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Aditya Pathak on behalf of the respondent – State.

2. The petition and an affidavit have been filed subsequent to an order dated 03.10.2025 passed by the Joint Director of the Commissionerate of Schools, State of Gujarat, reflecting a very sorry state of affairs in the department concerned. Though learned AGP Mr. Aditya Pathak tried to contend that the state of affairs is not sorry and whereas appropriate amends would be made, yet, to this Court it would appear that the State or its officers, are now trying to make amends once they have been caught red-handed.

3. The issue being that the petitioner herein, who was having qualification of B.P.E. (Bachelor of Physical Education) of 3 years, B.PEd of 1 year, M.P.Ed. (Master of Physical Education) of 2 years, and two-tier TAT (Teacher Aptitude Test) for Higher Secondary and for the subject of Yoga Health & Physical Education, had applied for selection to the post of Shikshan Sahayak in Non-Government Grant-in-Aid Higher Secondary Schools, issued by the respondents vide an advertisement. It would appear that even in the online application form, the qualifications as mentioned, were of M.P.E./M.P.Ed. with B.P.E. after 12^th standard from N.C.T.E. approved college degree awarded at the end of 3 or 4 years course in Yoga Health and Physical Education. It would thus appear that the petitioner, having qualifications of M.P.Ed. with B.P.E. and additional qualification of TAT in Yoga Health and Physical Education, were eligible as per the qualifications. It would appear that the petitioner having applied for selection on finding his name excluded from the provisional merit list, had approached this Court inter alia contending that though the petitioner has all the relevant qualifications yet, the petitioner’s name has been excluded. A learned Co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 15.05.2025 had issued notice to the State Authorities making it returnable on 21.05.2025. While the matter had been first heard on 21.05.2025, a learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, had inter alia vide an order of the very date, recorded the contentions of the learned advocate for the petitioner that the petitioner had the relevant qualifications yet he was excluded from the provisional merit list. Learned Co-ordinate Bench also recorded submission on part of the learned AGP that the petitioner had qualifications of B.P.E. and M.P.Ed. and whereas, the petitioner was not fulfilling the requisite qualifications. It would appear that on 21.05.2025, the learned Co-ordinate Bench had appreciated the contention on part of learned advocate for the petitioner that though the petitioner had been excluded from the selection on the ground that the petitioner did not have the relevant qualifications yet, there were other candidates, in the select list, who held the very selfsame qualifications as held by the petitioner. It is contended in the affidavit in reply by the deponent that the petitioner may not have any right to file the present writ petition itself, and whereas it is further contended that the petitioner, while he possessed the professional qualification, does not possess the appropriate academic qualifications. It is submitted that the qualifications of B.P.E. and M.P.E. are part of the academic qualification and whereas B.P.Ed. and M.P.Ed. are professional qualifications. It is tried to be submitted that since the petitioner does not have the requisite academic qualifications therefore, the petitioner was not selected and for good measure, it is also contended that since ‘determination of equivalency of qualifications and matters incidental or connected therewith fall within the exclusive domain of the employer therefore the employer being the best judge of the requirements, would be entitled to decide which qualification would be