ORDER : A.S. SUPEHIA, J. (1) With consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing. (2) The present appeal is directed against the judgement dated 28.06.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in the captioned writ petition, whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition by quashing the impugned orders dated 28.03.2008, 28.07.2008 and 07.12.2018, whereby the appellant authorities – original respondents have held appointment of the respondent No.1-original petitioner as illegal. The learned Single Judge has quashed and set aside the action of the appellant authorities -original respondent authorities, which has given rise to the present appeal. (3) Learned AGP Ms.Dhruve has submitted that the learned Single Judge fell in error in quashing and setting aside the orders passed by the appellant authorities since the initial appointment, which was made by the committee appointing the respondent No.1-original petitioner as a Teacher, was illegal. It is submitted that the said post of the Teacher was required to be filled-in by a candidate with experience of 5 years and since the respondent No.1-original petitioner is not having the said experience, he is not eligible to be appointed as a Teacher in the Higher Secondary School. It is submitted that during the audit done on 28.03.2008, it was noticed that the respondent No.1-original petitioner was not having experience and hence, an objection was raised and it was found that his appointment was illegal. It is submitted that the experience of Shikshan Sahayak cannot be considered equivalent to Shikshak/ Teacher. Thus, it is submitted that this vital aspect has been ignored and not appreciated by the learned Single Judge in its true perspective and hence, the order passed by the learned Single Judge may be quashed. (4) Per contra, learned advocate Mr.Dave has submitted that when the respondent No.1-original petitioner was appointed as a Teacher, the instructions which were issued after the Board Meeting held on 03.02.2006, were not in existence and the respondent No.1-original petitioner was governed by the instructions dated 22.03.2006, which were issued by the Board Meeting held on 24.02.2005 and as per the said instructions, more particularly Clause-2 thereof, the experience of a Teacher in the Higher Secondary as well as Secondary School was required to be considered as total experience to be appointed as a Teacher. It is submitted that accordingly, the respondent No.1- original petitioner was appointed after undertaking necessary recruitment process vide appointment order dated 17.01.2006, which was further approved by the appellant authorities. It is submitted that in the audit, objection was taken in the year 2008 with regard to 5 years’ experience as a teacher and ultimately, after the respondent No.1 having worked for all these years, on 07.02.2018, the respondent Nos.2 and 3, without jurisdiction, without authority of law and without hearing the respondent No.1, passed such order. Thus, it is submitted that after all these years, the appointment of the respondent No.1cannot be said to be illegal. (5) We have heard the learned advocates for the respective parties at length and also perused the judgement and order passed by the learned Single Judge. (6) It is not in dispute that the respondent No.1 was appointed as a Teacher on 17.01.2006 under the original respondent No.5-School after undertaking necessary recruitment process initiated pursuant to the advertisement dated 01.09.2005. The respondent No.5 is a Grant-in-Aid Institute and hence, issued advertisement for filling-up such post. Five Member Committee was appointed to undertake the recruitment process. The Committee was comprising of one representative of the Trust, one representative from the Board, one member of the School and 2 representatives of the teachers. Thus, the appointment of the respondent No.1 cannot be said to be illegal in any manner, as such the appointment of the respondent No.1 was also approved by the State authority however, it appears that the audit objection raised against the appointment of the respondent No.1, which pertains to 5 years’ experience which was requisite as per the advertisement. (7) The facts on record suggest that initially, the respondent No.1 was appointed in Arun Vidhyalay (Higher Secondary School) from 21.01.2000 to 31.05.2004 and as the school was closed down, he was declared as surplus and he was shifted to M.J. Patel Higher Secondary School, Parabadi and he served there from 14.06.2004 to 24.01.2006. He reported on duty at the original respondent No.5- School on 25.01.2006. Thus, when the recruitment process was undertaken, the respondent No.1 was having almost 6 years’ experience. (8) It is also noticed by us that when he appointment of the respondent No.1 was made, the Administrative Circular dated 22.03.2006 was prevailing which was issued pursuant to the Board Meeting held on 24.02.2005. Thus, when the recruitment process was undertaken, the respondent No.1 was having almost 6 years’ experience. (8) It is also noticed by us that when he appointment of the respondent No.1 was made, the Administrative Circular dated 22.03.2006 was prevailing which was issued pursuant to the Board Meeting held on 24.02.2005. The said circular is produced at page No.90. As per the Clause No.2 therein, which is the opinion of the Board Meeting held on 24.02.2005, the experience of teacher in both Secondary and Higher Secondary is required to be considered as equal. It appears that subsequently, in the Board meeting which was held on 03.02.2006, the Committee passed a new resolution being Resolution No.712 of 2006 in which it was decided that both experiences are to be counted separate for considering 5 years total experience. (9) The audit raised objection of 5 years’ experience in the year 2008 and accordingly, the Joint Director (Account) vide a communication dated 28.03.2008 had written to the District Education Officer, Amreli to consider the appointment of the respondent No.1-original petitioner as illegal, as he was not having total 5 years’ experience of teaching, as per the advertisement. Such objection further culminated into the impugned orders. The learned Single Judge, after considering all these facts, has held as under: “12. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, what needs to be appreciated is that the advertisement in question for the post of teacher under the respondent No.5- school was issued on 01.09.2005. The instruction which is relied upon by the State viz. of 22.03.2006 albeit did stipulate that for the purposes of being appointed as a teacher, the requisite experience as a teacher is required. However, there was no fine distinction between the term ‘Shikshak’ or ‘Shikshan Sahayak’. The clarification came post the appointment of the petitioner on 03.02.2006 clearly indicating that for the purposes of counting experience of five years as Shikshan Sahayak either in the secondary or higher secondary section would not respectively be considered as requisite for the purposes of appointment of the teacher in the alternative sections. The clarification came post the appointment of the petitioner on 03.02.2006 clearly indicating that for the purposes of counting experience of five years as Shikshan Sahayak either in the secondary or higher secondary section would not respectively be considered as requisite for the purposes of appointment of the teacher in the alternative sections. The second aspect that needs to be considered is that the NOC was issued by the District Education Officer for permission to fill in the post of the teacher and what is indicated from the letter dated 15.12.2005 addressed by the school to the District Education Officer, that the school informed the District Education Officer annexing the certificates of the petitioner with regard to the experience and therefore the request was made to the District Education Officer that the appointment be approved. The NOC as stated earlier was also issued after due approval of the District Education Officer. The note in the Rojkam would so indicate that there was an approval of the District Education Officer in the entire process of selection. Once the procedure envisaged under Section 35 of the Gujarat Secondary Education Act was followed as is evident from the appointment order dated 17.01.2006 read in context of the Rojkam produced with the affidavit in reply, the impugned orders indicate that it is not their stand that the appointment was not in accordance with the procedure stipulated but what was essentially objected to was that the audit department had not approved such appointment. This, in the opinion of the Court, was beyond the purview of the department when, the entire procedure of selection was followed. A fine distinction drawn by the department on the basis of the terminology of ‘Shikshak’ and ‘Shikshan Sahayak’ the petitioner who carries out the same duties as a teacher albeit not on the same terms as a regularly appointed teacher, however, having undertaken the same selection process, cannot be denied the benefit of experience of five years he had undergone in the schools as referred to herein above.” (10)We do not find any infirmity or illegality in the observations recorded by the learned Single Judge. It cannot be said that the appointment made by the Committee, which is a Statutory Committee, de hors the conditions of the advertisement. When the respondent No.1 was appointed, he was fulfilling 5 years’ experience as per the requirement, as mentioned hereinabove. It cannot be said that the appointment made by the Committee, which is a Statutory Committee, de hors the conditions of the advertisement. When the respondent No.1 was appointed, he was fulfilling 5 years’ experience as per the requirement, as mentioned hereinabove. The audit fell in error in raising objection to the appointment of the respondent. (11)Under the circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere with the judgement and order passed by the learned Single Judge. It is also noticed by us that pursuant to the interim order passed by us on 03.10.2024, a fresh exercise was undertaken by the authorities with regard to calculation of pay since it was the case of the appellant authorities that though the pay of the respondent No.1 was fixed at Rs.5,500/-, as per the appointment order, as per the clause of the advertisement, he would be entitled to pay of Rs.4,500/- instead of Rs.5,500/-. We had directed the appellant authorities to undertake exercise and statements of the learned advocate made on behalf of the respondent were also recorded. In the said order, wherein the respondent No.1 had agreed upon to accept the pay-scale, which he would be actually entitled to, as per the clause of the advertisement. We had also clarified that no recovery shall be effected from the respondent No.1 in case it is found that the pay fixation was incorrect after all these years since the respondent No.1 has been working as a Higher Secondary Teacher from 2006. (12)Under the circumstances, and in light of the aforesaid facts, which are recorded in the order dated 03.10.2024, in order to see that the entire dispute is laid quietus, the respondent No.1 would be entitled to the pay-scale on the basis of initial pay-scale of Rs.4,500/- instead of Rs.5,500/- i.e. his salary would be re-fixed and accordingly, revised salary from the month of March, 2025 onwards shall be paid. It is clarified that no recovery shall be effected from the respondent No.1. Though this issue was not raised before the learned Single Judge, and is raised by the respective parties for the first time before us, we have passed the order accordingly for settling the same, in order to avoid further litigation. (13) The Letters Patent Appeal stands disposed of accordingly. As a sequel, the connected civil application also stands disposed of.