AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.V. Anjaria, J
In the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the request and consent of the parties appearing through their respective learned
advocates, the petition was taken up for final consideration today.
1.1 Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Manan Mehta waives service of Rule for the respondent state and its
authorities.
1.2 Heard learned advocate Mr. K. B. Pujara for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent state and its authorities,
By filling this petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to issue order of appointment to the petitioner as Head Teacher, Class-III, and to
grant all consequential benefits including salary and seniority. The petitioner seeks appointment from 21.3.2017 when she was called for verification of
her documents, however subsequently no appointment was given to her.
The petitioner possessed the qualification of Bachelor of Education. She also passed Head Teacher's Aptitude Test and further possessed five
years teaching experience. The petitioner was thus qualified to be appointed as Head Teacher, Class-III. Therefore, pursuant to advertisement dated
22.1.2017, issued for the post, the petitioner submitted her application. The petitioner was meritorious and found her position in general category merit
No. OP000026 and received call letter. The petitioner was thereafter required to appear before the selection committee on 21.3.2017 for the purpose
of verification of documents. The petitioner remained present.
3.1 While no written order was issued to the petitioner denying the appointment, she was orally told that the petitioner obtained degree of Bachelor of
Arts during the years 2009-2010 to 2011-2012 which was obtained while she was serving in the primary section of Sheth G. C. High School. It was
stated that since the degree was obtained while in service, the said period of service could not be counted towards experience. It was raised as a
ground that the petitioner undertook studies of Bachelor of Arts during service hours.
This very reason has been set forth by the respondents in the affidavit-in-reply wherein inter alia it was stated that since the petitioner had
undertaken full time Bachelor's degree course while remaining employed as a teacher, she was regarded as unfit for appointment for want of meeting
with the experience requirement.
It appears that the petitioner studied Bachelor of Arts Course in U. P. Arts College, Pilvai. According to the petitioner, the time of the college was
from 12 p.m. to 4 p.m.. The timing of the school where she was serving was morning hours from 7.30 am to 12 p.m.. It was stated that the college
was only 50 meters away and the petitioner could study the Bachelor of Arts course without sacrificing teaching as a teacher in the primary section of
the school since the hours of study and the hours of the service did not conflict.
5.1 The petitioner has placed on record the necessary certificates whereunder the authority concerned has certified about the hours of study in the
college. The certificate from the school is also produced which fortifies that hours of the school were different than the hours of study.
5.2 The petitioner made representations dated 28.3.2017 and 4.10.2017, since she was not given the appointment even after the document verification.
In the said representation, it was pointed out that after obtaining qualification of PTC, the petitioner marks five years of experience as a teacher,
which was for the total duration of 6 years and nine months. It was also pointed out that her study hours in the course of Bachelor of Arts and her
teaching hours in the school never clashed.
5.3 In the representation, the petitioner mentioned two instances of one Roshniben Ashok Kumar Thakkar and Bhavnaben Ramshibhai Vadher whose
cases were similar, however, their candidatures for the post of Head Teacher was accepted by the Gujarat Primary Education Selection Committed
by passing resolution in its meeting dated 4.4.2017 stating that the hours of service and the hours of the study were different. The appointment order
were given to the said two candidates.
5.4 A close look on the stand of the respondents evinced from the affidavit-in-reply suggested that the respondents really did not dispute the aspect
that the hours of study and hours of service were different. They have not indeed disputed the certificates produced by the petitioner on that count.
There is also no gainsaying that the petitioner made representation immediately after she appeared before the selection committee on 21.3.2004.
5.5 What is sought to be highlighted by the respondents that the necessary documents showing the factum that the hours of study and hours of service
were different, came to be produced by the petitioner after few months. The acceptability of this situation also vanishes when the materials on record
of the petition was seen. It transpired that the petitioner applied under the Right to Information Act, 2005, for obtaining necessary documents showing
the details of hours etc. and upon receiving such certifications and documents, they were produced before the authorities, leading to passage of time.
5.6 When the respondents have considered the cases of Roshniben Ashok Kumar Thakkar and Bhavnaben Ramshibhai Vadher who were similarly
situated and when in the case of the petitioner also it could be undisputedly established that the petitioner studied Bachelor of Arts course without
sacrificing her hours of service and since hours of study and hours of teaching were shown to be different, the stand of the respondents in not
recognising relevant period of service of the petitioner towards experience is arbitrary and unreasonable.
5.7 The petitioner who was meritorious and who succeeded on merits for the purpose of appointment to the post of Head Teacher, Class-III, could not
have been denied the appointment on the ground that she obtained her B.A. degree while in service. The services rendered by the petitioner as
teacher during the time when she studied B.A. degree was liable to be counted towards experience and in the facts of the case, the respondents could
not have rejected the said period from being counted.
Resultantly, the petitioner is entitled to succeed. Accordingly, the action on part of the respondents in orally denying the appointment to the petitioner
despite her merit, is hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to treat the petitioner as eligible to be appointed to the post of Head Teacher,
Class-III, pursuant to advertisement dated 22.1.2017 and issue letter of appointment within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of this order.
The respondents are further directed to grant all consequential benefits including salary and seniority as if the petitioner was given appointment
alongwith the other candidates who fared successful pursuant to the said advertisement and who were given appointments
The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Rule is made absolute.