Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 202 (GUJ)

Narendrasinh Rupsinh Chauhan v. State of Gujarat

2018-01-22

MOHINDER PAL

body2018
JUDGMENT 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the action of the respondent of not selecting him for the post of Head Master. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that on 12.6.1997 he was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000 in Higher Secondary Section in Science Stream in respondent no. 4 school namely Pragatik Vidhyalal, Pandva. He worked as Assistant Teacher from 12.6.1997 to 15.12.2006. The petitioner was having qualification of M.Sc., M.Ed. In the year 2006-2007, respondent no. 3- District Education Officer granted N.O.C. for recruitment to the post of Head Master vide his letter dated 7.10.2006-6.2.2007. A public advertisement was published in this regard on 24.4.2007 in the daily news-paper. The petitioner being eligible, applied for the post of Head Master. The respondent no. 4 vide its letter dated 25.7.2007 wrote to the petitioner that he was not having experience of teaching in a grant-in-aid school, therefore, was not called for interview. 3. Aggrieved by this letter, the petitioner preferred Special Civil Application No. 19423 of 2007 before this Court. This Court passed an order on 3.8.2007 directing the respondent to interview the petitioner in the interview going to be held on 6.8.2007. Accordingly, the District Education Officer informed the petitioner vide their letter dated 3.8.2007 to remain personally present for interview. The petitioner was interviewed by a committee consisting of four members. The Selection Committee unanimously decided not to give any marks to the petitioner because he was not having the qualifications as per Regulation 20(1), and has not submitted the experience certificate. Thereafter, this Court passed another order in the pending petition on 10.1.2008 and gave directions to the respondent no. 3 – District Education Officer. It is the grievance of the petitioner that despite the petitioner having participated in the interview and directions given by this Court, he has not been given appointment rather respondent no. 5 another candidate has been selected in his place. Accordingly, the petitioner preferred the present petition which is pending for disposal before this Court. 4. It is the grievance of the petitioner that despite the petitioner having participated in the interview and directions given by this Court, he has not been given appointment rather respondent no. 5 another candidate has been selected in his place. Accordingly, the petitioner preferred the present petition which is pending for disposal before this Court. 4. The respondents have contested this petition by filing reply, wherein, it has been stated that as the petitioner was not possessing required certificate of experience from aided school which was a requirement as per Regulation 20(1) of the Gujarat Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Regulations, 1974, and therefore, his case has been rightly rejected by the respondents. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was duly qualified for the post of Head Master. He has worked as Assistant Teacher in the pay-scale of Rs. 5500-9000. He was having requisite experience. There were specific directions of this Court to consider the case of the petitioner, however, despite that, the respondents authorities have selected respondent no. 5 which was against the Regulations and directions of this Court. It was also the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner that the amendment regarding experience from the granted school has come up in the year 2011 and as the selection in question pertains to the year 2008, the candidature of the petitioner has been wrongly rejected by the respondents. 6. Learned AGP has put in appearance on behalf of respondent no. 3-District Education Officer and submitted that the matter is required to be dismissed in view of non-compliance of the Regulations and the fact that another candidate has been selected in place of the petitioner, who has worked for more than 10 years by now. 7. This Court has considered the submissions of both the sides. The basic dispute is regarding non-production of experience certificate from a school aided by the State Government. Regulation 20(1) reads as under: 20. Qualifications of had-masters, teachers and members of non-teaching staff in a registered school: (1) No person shall be appointed as Head master unless he is a trained graduate (B.T. Or B.Ed. The basic dispute is regarding non-production of experience certificate from a school aided by the State Government. Regulation 20(1) reads as under: 20. Qualifications of had-masters, teachers and members of non-teaching staff in a registered school: (1) No person shall be appointed as Head master unless he is a trained graduate (B.T. Or B.Ed. Or its equivalent degree as recognized by the Government) and possesses post-training teaching/inspecting experience of not less than 5 years of which at least 3 years' teaching experience must be a secondary/Higher Secondary School, pII or he is a graduate and possesses ten years' teaching experience in a Secondary/Higher Secondary School, after qualifying in STC,TD,HSS/AM/DM/ATD/B/Mus. (Visharad) and in all 15 years teaching experience. Besides, candidate having M.Ed. Degree shall be given preference.” 8. It is the case of the petitioner that during the pendency of earlier petition, an interim order was passed by this Court, vide which, respondents authorities were directed to provide required certificate of experience, however, before that certificate could be produced by the petitioner, respondent no. 5 has been given appointment. 9. This Court has considered the aforementioned submissions. No doubt, in the regulation 20(1), the condition regarding experience from grant-in- aid school has been amended in the year 2011. However, keeping in view the fact that the other person who has been selected in place of petitioner, has put in more than 10 years service, and up-setting his selection, at this juncture, will disturb the entire set-up of the respondents. It may not be in the fitness of things to disturb the appointment of respondent no. 5 at this stage. Otherwise also, number of other selections might have taken place after the selection in question. Petitioner could have participated somewhere else in these period of ten years. 10. Without elaborating further in this case, this petition being devoid of any merits, is dismissed. Rule is discharged.