Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 285 (GUJ)

Labana Lalitkumar Kanwarji v. State of Gujarat

2019-03-29

N.V.ANJARIA

body2019
JUDGMENT : N.V. ANJARIA, J. 1. Could a candidate who obtained his basic degree qualifications in Hindi medium of instruction, plead breach of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, upon being treated not eligible for appointment as a teacher in the school imparting education in Gujarati medium? 2. By filing the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner seeks to set at naught the action on part of the respondents in denying the appointment to the petitioner on the post of Shikshan Sahayak. The petitioner further wants this Court to declare that the petitioner was eligible to be appointed to the post for Maths/Science subject. The petitioner has prayed to grant appointment and all consequential benefits of salary and seniority to be given appointment on the post from 23rd March, 2017 along with other candidates in the recruitment process. 3. The petitioner has stated that he passed B.Sc. (Chemistry) examination as also obtained M.Sc. (Chemistry). These degrees were obtained from Mohanlal Sukhadia University, Udaipur, Rajasthan. The petitioner has further possessed B.Ed. Degree in the subjects of Maths, Science and I.T. Education from Gujarat University. The petitioner further cleared the Teachers' Aptitude Test-2014 of the Gujarat Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Board, Gandhinagar. According to the petitioner, he was qualified and eligible to be appointed as a Shikshan Sahayak in the secondary and higher secondary schools for the subjects of Maths and Science. 3.1 The petitioner, belonging to general category, applied pursuant to advertisement dated 01st February, 2017 issued for recruitment to the posts of Shikshan Sahayaks in the government secondary schools in Gujarati medium. Out of the total 1335 posts advertised, 647 posts were in respect of the subjects of Maths/Science, for which the petitioner had fared. As per the break up given by the petitioner of the categories in the Maths/Science subject, out of the total posts in the subject as above, 1400 posts were available for open category. 3.2 The petitioner was placed in the merit list of general category merit and was issued call letter on 19th March, 2017 for remaining present for the district selection. It is the case of the petitioner that he remained present with his original certificates and mark-sheets and filled up the necessary form. It appears that the petitioner, at the stage of document verification, was refused the appointment. It is the case of the petitioner that he remained present with his original certificates and mark-sheets and filled up the necessary form. It appears that the petitioner, at the stage of document verification, was refused the appointment. He was told that since the petitioner had studied in Hindi medium, his candidature was not accepted. An endorsement on the form of the petitioner was made stating accordingly. 3.3 The Rules called Teachers of Government Secondary and Higher Secondary Rules (Procedure for Selection) Rules, 2012 as amended by Notification dated 02nd April, 2013 and further amended by Notification dated 23rd February, 2016 attend to the recruitment to the post. Rule 7 contemplates that in order to be eligible for appointment as Teacher in secondary school, the candidate shall have to possess a Bachelor's degree in Arts or Science or Commerce, obtained from any of the universities or institutions established or incorporated by Act of Parliament or by a State Legislature etc. or an equivalent qualification recognised as such the Government. It further stipulates that candidate should possess a Bachelor's degree in education obtained from any of the universities established or incorporated as above etc. 3.4 As a part of the advertisement published for recruitment of Shikshan Sahayak in Gujarati medium in the registered government colleges, the competent authority notified instructions and conditions which are part of the advertisement. Conditions mentioned in the advertisement include the eligibility stipulations as well as other conditions which a candidate would be required to satisfy. It provided that candidate would have to meet with the educational qualifications. It mentioned about the requirement of possessing the knowledge of computer. Condition No. VIII stated that the candidate would be entitled to compete for the post in the same medium of instruction, in which the candidate has studied and has obtained educational qualification. The petitioner studied in Hindi Medium in the Udaipur University to obtain his Degrees of B.Sc. and M.Sc. in that medium. The petitioner was treated to be disqualified to be considered for the post. 4. Heard learned advocate Mr. K.B. Pujara for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. K.M. Antani for the respondents at length. 4.1 Learned advocate for the petitioner firstly submitted that the criteria regarding educational qualifications prescribed under the Rules for the post of Shikshan Sahayak could be said to be well satisfied by the petitioner. 4. Heard learned advocate Mr. K.B. Pujara for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. K.M. Antani for the respondents at length. 4.1 Learned advocate for the petitioner firstly submitted that the criteria regarding educational qualifications prescribed under the Rules for the post of Shikshan Sahayak could be said to be well satisfied by the petitioner. It was submitted that the requirement insisted upon that the petitioner must have studied in the Gujarati medium did not find its place in the provisions of the Rules. Therefore, it was submitted, that the same could not have been prescribed in the advertisement and that it travelled beyond the Rules. Learned advocate thereafter argued about the need to develop Hindi as a language and further highlighted the importance of Hindi language by referring to certain Articles from the Constitution. 4.2 It was further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner was holding B.Ed. Degree for which he studied in Gujarati medium and the Teachers' Aptitude Test-2014 was also cleared by the petitioner. According to learned advocate for the petitioner, the petitioner was fluent in speaking Gujarati language. It was submitted that the exclusion of the candidature of the petitioner only on the ground that he had not obtained the educational qualification in Gujarati medium was not justified and did not have legal sanction as it was not in the rules. He proceed to rely on decision of the Supreme Court in Chandrakala Trivedi vs. State of Rajasthan, (2012) 3 SCC 29, to submit that in that case the Apex Court directed not to cancel the provisional selection of the petitioner candidate concerned. 4.3 On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader relied on the contents of the affidavit-in-reply to further his submissions inter alia that the requirement of the candidate having studied in the same medium of instruction in which the candidate is to teach in the school was a supplementary condition which was not in conflict with the Rules. It was submitted that the respondents are competent to prescribe such condition which was rational in itself. It was submitted that the contention of the petitioner that he had studied B.Ed. and had passed TAT-2014 in Gujarati medium was of no avail since the requisite basic qualifications were obtained by studying in Hindi medium. It was submitted that the respondents are competent to prescribe such condition which was rational in itself. It was submitted that the contention of the petitioner that he had studied B.Ed. and had passed TAT-2014 in Gujarati medium was of no avail since the requisite basic qualifications were obtained by studying in Hindi medium. 4.4 It was submitted that mere acquisition of TAT qualification would not invest the candidate with the eligibility or qualification to the appointment as Shikshan Sahayak. As regards the reliance placed by the petitioner in Chandrakala Trivedi (supra), it was submitted that as recorded in paragraph 9 of the said decision, the Supreme Court had observed that it was passing the said order in special facts and circumstances of the case. It was submitted that even otherwise, the facts in Chandrakala Trivedi (supra) were different and the said decision in no way could be applied to the facts of the present case. 5. At the outset, as regards the reliance placed on Chandrakala Trivedi (supra), the Supreme Court, therein invoked the doctrine of legitimate expectation in respect of the claim of the candidate who was provisionally selected having possessed the basic qualification of senior secondary or intermediate qualification. The High Court had taken view that higher qualification was not the substitute for qualification of senior secondary or intermediate. The Supreme Court disapproved this reasoning of the High Court that it did not consider higher qualification as equivalent to the qualification of passing senior secondary education in respect of a candidate who was provisionally selected. The Court held that the word “equivalent” was required to be given a reasonable meaning. 5.1 The facts in Chandrakala Trivedi (supra) had a different contour. It could also be countenanced, as submitted by learned Assistant Government Pleader, that the Supreme Court took the view in special facts and circumstances of the case as observed by the Apex Court. If it was an argument on behalf of the petitioner that any legitimate expectation arose for the petitioner to be appointed, it has to be observed that merely because call letter was sent to the petitioner to remain present for selection, any legitimate expectation in law would not arise. If it was an argument on behalf of the petitioner that any legitimate expectation arose for the petitioner to be appointed, it has to be observed that merely because call letter was sent to the petitioner to remain present for selection, any legitimate expectation in law would not arise. Not only that, right to be appointed does not fructify for a candidate until he or she is appointed after clearance of all stages in the recruitment process and even the placement in the select list does not give rise to any such vested right. In the present case, testimonials of the petitioner were yet to be undergone the examination. 5.2 Legitimate expectation is a facet of Article 14 and in order to invoke the doctrine of legitimate expectation, the test of rationality must be satisfied. Both, rationality and legality, are integral ingredients in the concept of legitimate expectation. Therefore, unless the end-result meets with the legality and it is in the realm of rationality, it would be difficult to invoke the principle of legitimate expectation. 5.3 Also disposing of the other contention about the passing Teachers' Aptitude Test in Gujarati medium, it has to be stated that it is of no avail to the petitioner and stands meritless inasmuch as the result-sheet itself of the said examination mentioned that the qualification of passing the same would not mean possessing the requisite qualification to become secondary teacher. Yet another miscellaneous argument was canvassed that giving importance to the Hindi language was necessary, which submission was too spacious to be accommodated and it cannot be said to be germane to the issue involved. 6. Now, adverting to the core merit in the controversy, undisputedly, out of the earned educational qualifications, the petitioner passed his B.Sc. and M.Sc. in Hindi medium. The post of Shikshan Sahayak was meant for secondary school which impart education in Gujarati as its medium of instruction. Since the appointees are to be placed in such schools and they were to teach the students in Gujarati medium, it entirely stands to reason that the prescription is provided in the qualification to become Shikshan Sahayak by placing a condition that candidature of those candidates only would be treated as acceptable who have studied and acquired all basic educational qualifications in the same medium of instructions for which they are to be posted. In other words, since the appointees are to be posted in the Gujarati medium schools, their basic qualifications obtained in the Hindi medium or the medium other than the Gujarati were not recognised. 6.1 When the probable appointee is to be posted in the Gujarati medium secondary schools and are expected to teach in the medium of instructions which would be Gujarati, the providence of the requirement that the candidate must have studied in the same medium, is a requirement having rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved, the object being securing proper and smooth impartation of education in the medium concerned. It is only rational that the employing authorities have insisted upon this requirement. It stands valid to the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution. Reasonability and rationality always inform the spirit of Article 14. They also go with the mandate of equality in public employment, therefore sand valid to the tenets of Article 16 of the Constitution. What satisfies the test of Article 14, does meet with requirements of Article 16 of the Constitution. 6.2 It takes the Court to the next contention that the Rule did not provide the requirement in the above regard which was stated in the advertisement. Once the condition prescribed in this regard is found to quite relevant and rational, it can be said to be supplementing the Rules to lay down the final eligibility. Such a condition bear a close nexus with the object sought to be achieved. It cannot be said to be in conflict with the requirement for the post. It is a condition which adds to the criteria of judging suitability. 6.3 In J. Ranga Swamy vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh, (1990) 1 SCC 288 , the Supreme Court observed to state that it is not for the Court to consider the relevance of qualifications prescribed for various posts. In Chandigarh Administration through Director of Public Instructions (Colleges) vs. Usha Kheterpal Waie, (2011) 9 SCC 645 , the issue was regarding prescription of Ph.D. as requirement for the post of College Principal. In Chandigarh Administration through Director of Public Instructions (Colleges) vs. Usha Kheterpal Waie, (2011) 9 SCC 645 , the issue was regarding prescription of Ph.D. as requirement for the post of College Principal. What is relevant to notice is the observation of the Supreme Court, though the background fact was slightly different than the present one, that “when the said qualification is not unrelated to the duties and functions of the post of Principal and is reasonably relevant to maintain the high standards of education, there is absolute no reason to interfere with the provision of the said requirement as eligibility requirements.” 6.4 In Usha Kheterpal Waie (supra), the Court proceeded to observe to hold: “It is now well settled that it is for the rule-making authority or the appointing authority to prescribe the mode of selection and minimum qualification for any recruitment. The courts and tribunals can neither prescribe the qualifications nor entrench upon the power of the authority concerned so long as the qualifications prescribed by the employer is reasonably relevant and has a rational nexus with the functions and duties attached to the post and are not violative of any provision of the Constitution, statute and rules..........” (Para 22) (Emphasis supplied) 6.5 In P.U. Joshi vs. Accountant General, Ahmedabad, (2003) 2 SCC 632, the principle was stated that determination of condition of service, alteration thereof by amending rules, etc., all belonging to executive policy and within the exclusive discretion of the State. Laying down the criteria and qualifications, prescribing the conditions of eligibility in addition to the basic qualification, determining the condition of appointment, selecting the yardstick to judge the suitability to the post, are the all functions in the domain of the employer. The employing authority has to be given a free-hand in this regard for charting its own area so long the action and the decision by the employing authority do not come into conflict with or not in discordance with or do not violate any rule, statutory norm or constitutional limitation. Also, the candidate cannot unreasonably question the decisions of the employer on such score and in this sphere. It is permissible for the employer to stipulate the criteria and conditions to govern the appointment to a post. Also, the candidate cannot unreasonably question the decisions of the employer on such score and in this sphere. It is permissible for the employer to stipulate the criteria and conditions to govern the appointment to a post. 6.6 It was entirely logical, rational and reasonable to put a condition for appointment of candidate who would teach in the schools imparting education in the Gujarati medium instruction, that he or she would have acquired his or her basic qualification for the post in the same medium. Petitioner was validly subtracted from the list of eligible candidates as he was found to have acquired his basic degrees of B.Sc. and M.Sc. in the different, that is Hindi medium. 7. For the foregoing reasons and discussion, no case is made out to grant the relief to the petitioner. The case of the petitioner stands meritless. The petition is liable to be dismissed. The same is hereby dismissed. Notice is discharged. Interim order stands vacated.