PATEL CHAITALIBEN BHIKABHAI vs STATE OF GUJARAT & OTHERS

Since this group of petitions involves identical questions of facts and law, it is being decided by this common order.

The facts are drawn from Special Civil Application No.1582 of 2017, treating it as the lead matter, which read as under :

2.1 The petitioner is serving as a Teacher at Meda in Primary School. The respondentState issued different Government Resolutions on different dates making it compulsory for all the Government employees to have the basic computer knowledge. Passing of examination of computer subject i.e. Course on Computer Concepts (hereinafter referred to as ''CCC''), has also been made compulsory not only for promotion, but also for getting higher payscale in different classes. The first such Government Resolution was issued on September 30, 2006. The examination was to be conducted by Industrial Training Institute (hereinafter referred to as ''the ITI'') Centre by the Gujarat Council of Vocational Training. Thereafter, on January 02, 2009, another Government Resolution came to be issued recognising Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar Open University for the purpose of training and examination. The list of centres for training and examination has been declared. Another Government Resolution dated June 22, 2010, was issued cancelling some of the examination and training centres of this very University from the earlier list.

2.2 The petitioner received the training from Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar Open University and one of the centres specified in the schedule of the said Government Resolution dated June 22, 2010, has been taken by him as an examination centre. He appeared in the examination held in the month of January, 2016 and the result thereof was declared in February, 2016. The certificate to that effect has also been given to him on his clearing the examination.

2.3 The petitioner since has joined the service on August 09, 1996, according to him, he is entitled for second higher payscales from August 09, 2016. As the petitioner had not been granted the second higher payscale, on inquiring with the respondentauthority, it came to his notice that the ''CCC'' examination passed by him was of 400 marks instead of 100 marks and, therefore, the marksheet submitted by him was neither acceptable nor could it be made the basis for getting the higher payscale. It is, thus, the grievance of the petitioner that although the University and its examination centres have been recognised by the respondentState, the certificate of the very University is treated as invalid only on the ground of examination conducted of 400 marks and not of 100 marks. Resultantly, he has preferred present petition praying for the following substantial reliefs :

"8(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue appropriate writ/ order or direction directing the respondents herein to give Second Higher Pay Scale to the petitioner from the date on which the petitioner has become entitled for getting higher pay scale in the interest of justice;

(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to accept the certificate of the petitioner of CCC examination obtained from Babasaheb Ambedkar university and to pass appropriate order of giving higher pay scale to the petitioner in the interest of justice;"

At the time of issuance of notice, while waiving the service of notice, the learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms.Asmita Patel raised certain factual questions to support the stand of the respondent of voicing disentitlement of the petitioner to get higher payscale in absence of the CCC certificate issued by the Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar Open University.

Today the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in different petitions have been heard at length. Also, heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader, who on instructions from the Senior Officer of the respondentauthority has made her submissions strenuously.

It is the say of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that all the three Government Resolutions clearly indicate that the Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar Open University is recognised by the respondentState for the purpose of training, so also for the examination. The centres which have been listed in the schedule are also recognised by the respondentState and all the petitioners in different petitions indisputably appeared through those recognised centres and have cleared the examination. These clearance is between the years 2013 and 2016.

On their completion of specific period of service would entitle them to get higher payscale for which they needed to cross the hurdle of possessing CCC certificate, which they had done as prescribed in the said Government Resolution. And yet, they are being denied the benefits on the ground that the said University conducted CCC examination of more marks. It is urged by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that at no stage, those centres of the said University have been derecognised nor have the employees been intimated of such objections. Therefore, they have urged that the petitioners cannot be put to any jeopardy. Even otherwise, appearing in the examination for CCC itself is an arduous task as the Government employees need to be queued up for their appearance in the examination.

According to Ms.Asmita Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader, all the three Government Resolutions if are read in chronology, it has been made very clear as to what is the syllabus prescribed by the respondentState. The examination is of 100 marks i.e. theory and practical examinations, each of 50 marks, wherein for clearing such examination, minimum 25 marks are to be obtained. Initially, according to her, it was Gujarat Council of Vocational Training or the concerned ITI centres administered by the Government of Gujarat which were prescribed as examination centres and training centres as well. Sardar Patel Institute of Public Administration (SPIPA) was also one of the training centres. She has also contended that later on, in the year 2009, Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar University has been recognised to conduct such examination and training, which of course was permitted under the direct supervision of any officer named either by the Gujarat Technical Examination Board, SPIPA or ITI. The centres also were prescribed in the schedule and later on, on June 22, 2010, some of the centres for examination of Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar Open University had been derecognised and some new centres were recognised for the very purpose and, thus, final certificate of schedule ''C'' gives details of those examination centres. According to her, the employees are supposed to be in know of the said aspects. She further urged that unless what has been required by the Government Resolution is reflected in the certificate, no insistence could be made of their recognising the certificate.

Having thus heard both the sides and having perused the material on record, this Court finds the action of the respondentauthority having no valid basis. Without any application of mind, denial to recognise the certificate deserves interference for the reasons to follow hereinafter :

8.1 It is an uncontroverted fact that the Government Resolution dated September 20, 2006, issued by the General Administration Department is qua the CCC and CCC+ examinations, wherein as rightly pointed out by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, the training prescribed for CCC examination with which we are concerned, is of 45 hours; whereas the examination of 100 marks i.e. 50 marks each for practical and theory examinations. Both, the Gujarat Council for Vocational Training and ITI Centres administered by the Government of Gujarat, were to conduct the examination. For the purpose of training also, the Gujarat Council for Vocational Training and SPIPA were notified.

8.2 However, subsequently the General Administration Department on realising the magnitude of the task passed the Government Resolution on January 02, 2009 and it also included Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar Open University, for the purpose of training as well as examination, both. Total 181 centres of Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar Open University for training had been recognised, but for examination it was not recognised by the respondentState, which had been permitted under the supervision and guidance of any officer of SPIPA, ITI and Gujarat Technical Examination Board.

8.3 Once again, under the heading of Recognition of Centres of Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar Open University, a Government Resolution came to be issued, wherein some of the old centres have been derecognised and new centres have been introduced. Accordingly, schedule ''C'' has been considered to be the schedule with centres which are recognised for the purpose of examination. Thus, for the purpose of examination, Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar Open University with those specified training and examination centres continued to have recognition.

8.4 On adverting to the facts of the present case in the aforesaid background, it is not the case of the respondentauthority that any of the petitioners has either taken training at the centres which are not recognised or appeared in the examination which have not been prescribed in schedule ''C'' in the last Government Resolution issued on June 22, 2010. It is also necessary at this stage to particularly make a mention of the fact that there are no two types of examinations conducted for CCC by the Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar Open University, but only one type of examination, which is of 400 marks. Therefore, those who took training and appeared in the examination have no choice, but to appear in the examination conducted by the Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar Open University. Corollary to this is a fact which deserves to be mentioned emphatically that the aspect of the said University conducting examination of 400 marks has come to the knowledge of the respondent State since the year 2010. This was conveyed to the Court by the learned Assistant Government Pleader on instructions from the officer present in the Court, on a specific query raised by the Court. Yet the said centres have neither been removed till date by derecognising them for the purpose of training or examination, nor has there been any communication to the employees not to appear from such centres or to take such examination of 400 marks. When that is indisputable fact, there is no reason to deny the petitioners the benefits of higher payscale who have passed the CCC examination from the said University, which otherwise has recognised by both the Government Resolutions issued by the State.

8.5 One of the issues raised by the petitioners is with respect to the employees queuing up for want of availability of seats to appear in the CCC examination which has been made compulsory by the State Government for getting all the benefits in the Government service. For that very reason in the year 2009, the respondent State made it open for the Open Universities to be included for both, training and examination purpose.

8.6 Further, it is also not the case of the respondentState that the training and the examination conducted by the said University is not as per the syllabus prescribed. There were instances where prior to the year 2009, when this University was recognised for both these purposes, their training course was not recognised by the State authority, however, on realising that the same has fallen in the line of the prescription given by the respondentState, the recognition has come. In that view of the matter and with there being no choice with the candidates who appeared through this recognised centre, it is absolutely unjust and arbitrary action on the part of the respondentState to deny them the benefit after not having whispered once since the year 2010 that such course from the concerned University is not recognised.

8.7 For future course of action, if the respondentState chooses not to continue the recognition, it shall take necessary action in accordance with law, but till then, the certificate obtained by the petitioners on clearing the said CCC examination, without a semblance of indication of there being any illegality or irregularity in obtaining the same, on the issue of examination containing more marks than 100 marks, is a nonissue. Nothing can preclude the respondentState from calculating the marks obtained by the petitioners by calculating their percentage or on reducing the same to 100 marks on prorata basis.

8.8 It is also equally vital to note that a couple of instances with substantiating proofs are brought on record by the petitioners demonstrating that in the case of similarly situated employees, such certificate issued by the said University has been considered by the respondentState and they have been granted the benefits of higher payscale, which would amount to a clear breach of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

For the foregoing reasons, the present group of petitions succeeds and all the petitions are, accordingly, allowed. The respondentauthority is directed to consider the certificate of CCC issued by the Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar Open University to the petitioners and to give all the petitioners all the benefits for which they are entitled to on individually examining the facts of each case. Uncontrovertedly, nowhere the credentials have been questioned by the respondentauthority.

Before parting with the order, it is further directed that the respondentState shall on individual examination of case of each such similarly situated employee (not only the petitioners) would ensure grant of the benefits due to them, so that those employees need not to take recourse of law, which would otherwise result into enhancing the burden of the Court. The State shall, thus, provide necessary mechanism for dealing with the matters of all those employees who are identically situated. Their own Government Resolution/ guideline also provides for such an approach. With above directions, all the matters stand disposed of. Direct Service is permitted.