Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 321 (GUJ)

Shital Dashrathbhai Patel v. State Of Gujarat

2019-04-08

N.V.ANJARIA

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned advocate Mr.P.S.Patel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.K.M.Antani for the respondents. 2. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed to direct respondent No.2 Commissioner of School to appoint the petitioner as Shikshan Sahayak on the ground that the petitioner obtained qualifications by studying in Gujarati medium. It is further prayed to declare that the decision of respondent No.2 in not considering the case of the petitioner for the appointment to the post on the ground that the petitioner studied his basic degrees of B.Com. and M.Com. in English medium is illegal. 3. The petitioner had applied pursuant to advertisement for the post of Sikshan Sahayak. It is the case of the petitioner that he passed his B.Com. and M.Com. examinations in the subject of accounts and audit from the university of Mumbai by studying in English medium. It is the case that there was no Gujarati medium in Mumbai therefore, the petitioner had to study in English medium. Petitioner’s further case is that he thereafter passed his B.Ed. Degree and also cleared Teachers Aptitude Test in Gujarati medium. 3.1 The petitioner’s appointment to the post of Sikshan Sahayak was to be made in Gujarati medium secondary school, His candidature came to be declined and not recognized on the ground that the petitioner had obtained his basic degrees of B.Com and M.Com. in English medium and had not studied in Gujarati medium for those qualifications. 3.2 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. 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. 3.3 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 English Medium in the Mumbai University to obtain his Degrees of B.Com. and M.Com. in that medium. The petitioner was treated to be disqualified to be considered for the post. 4. Identical issue in relation to the same post to be filled up in the school imparting education in Gujarati medium, came up for consideration in Labana Lalitkumar Kanwarji vs. State of Gujarat and another, being Special Civil Application No.6445 of 2017, decided on 29.03.2019. The only difference therein was that the petitioner therein had obtained his basic degree of B.Sc. and M.Sc. in the Hindi medium and had competed with the post of Vidhya Sahayak for the higher secondary school where the medium of instruction was to be Gujarati. This Court dismissed the petition. 5. The discussion and the reasoning supplied in Labana Lalitkumar Kanwarji (supra), would apply. Extracting the relevant part as under, to be adopted to become part of reasoning of the present order. “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. “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 recognized. 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. 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), Chandigarh 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 rulemaking 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. 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 freehand 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.” 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.Com. and M.com. in the different, that is English medium. 7. For the foregoing reasons and discussion, no case is made out for grant of 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.