Gujarat High Court
Surani Hetal Vallabhbhai vs The State Of Gujarat on 27 June, 2022
Author: Biren Vaishnav
Bench: Biren Vaishnav
C/SCA/5948/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5948 of 2021
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6819 of 2021
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6997 of 2021
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6207 of 2021
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6207 of 2021
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6444 of 2021
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR DIRECTION) NO. 1 of 2021
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6444 of 2021
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6502 of 2021
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6502 of 2021
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6818 of 2021
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6818 of 2021
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10700 of 2021
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11458 of 2021
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12267 of 2021
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11499 of 2021
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
of the judgment ?
Page 1 of 14
Downloaded on : Tue Jun 28 21:09:02 IST 2022
C/SCA/5948/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2022
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
SURANI HETAL VALLABHBHAI
Versus
THE STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance In SCA No. 5948 of 2021:
MR BM MANGUKIYA(437) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS BELA A PRAJAPATI(1946) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR UTKARSH SHARMA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 3
VYOM H SHAH(9387) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
Appearance In SCA No. 6819, 6207, 6502, 6818 & 6997 of 2021:
MR AMIT JOSHI for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR KEVALSINH RATHOD for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR BHARGAVKUMAR VYAS for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR UTKARSH SHARMA, AGP for the Respondent(s)
Appearance In SCA No. 6444 of 2021:
MS MAMTA VYAS for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR UTKARSH SHARMA, AGP for the Respondent(s)
Appearance In SCA No. 10700, 11458, 12267 & 11499 of 2021:
MR RASHESH RINDANI for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR SHIRISH GOHIL for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR UTKARSH SHARMA, AGP for the Respondent(s)
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
Date : 27/06/2022
CAV JUDGMENT
1. All these petitions are filed by candidates aspiring to be appointed to the post of Shikshan Sahayak in grant-in-aid schools across the State. The advertisement in question are advertisement nos. 19/2021 to 26/2021 for recruitment to such posts.
2. The issues involved in each petition are discussed hereinbelow petitionwise:
Special Civil Application No. 10700 of 2021 Page 2 of 14 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 28 21:09:02 IST 2022 C/SCA/5948/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2022
3.1 The petitioner applied for the post of Shikshan Sahayak in Hindi subject in the category SC(Female). Based on the marks criteria, in accordance with the rules, she secured 68.2804 score in merit. Her name appeared at Sr. No. 156 in the merit list. She was called for document verification. She has done her Masters degree i.e. Master of Arts in Hindi from Gujarat University and Masters in Education from Barkatullah Vishwavidhyalaya University, Bhopal.
3.2 Mr. Rindani, learned counsel for the petitioner would draw the attention of the court to clause 23 of the instructions to the advertisement and submit that various documents such as migration certificate, proof of residence for the period of the course, certificate from the Registrar of the University were required to be produced. Except proof of hostel accommodation and certificate of the Registrar, all other documents indicated that the petitioner had completed her M.Ed from Barkatullah Vishwavidyalaya. However, on document verification, her merit was reduced to 64.836 on the ground that the documents were not sufficient to recognize her M.Ed from the University. No residential proof, hall ticket or affiliation letter was produced. Mr. Rindani therefore submitted that denial of appointment on the ground of not falling within merit therefore was bad.
3.3 Mr. Utkarsh Sharma, learned AGP for the State would submit that the inquiry committee elicited information regarding the petitioner's M.Ed qualification and the mark-sheet and the degree certificate when sought to be verified, no information has come forth. No certificate of the National Council for Teacher Education has been produced to suggest that the course was undertaken from the University. Hostel receipt Page 3 of 14 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 28 21:09:02 IST 2022 C/SCA/5948/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2022 suggesting stay during the course has also not been produced.
3.4 Perusal of the memo of the petition, together with the annexures indicate that for substantiating the claim that the petitioner had done her M.Ed from the University, on record are a migration certificate of the year 2009 of the Bhopal University. Admission card for the year 2008-09 is also produced with the Roll No. Degree certificates and the order dated 19.03.2008 of the National Council for Teacher Education granting recognition to the course at Career College where the petitioner pursued her M.Ed are on record. It shows that the course was a regular one. Also produced is a receipt/certificate of the Principal of the college though dated 14.06.2021 that she was a hostel occupant in the year 2008-09. All these documents taken simultaneously would indicate that the stand of the respondents that the petitioner was not entitled to have her M.Ed degree being considered for merit merely because no affiliation letter or a hall ticket was produced is misconceived.
3.5 Petition is allowed. It is declared that the petitioner holds merit of 68.2804 and therefore in accordance with this merit that was in the provisional merit list first prepared, the petitioner is entitled to be appointed on the post of Shikshan Sahayak in Hindi subject. Respondents are directed to appoint the petitioner on the post in question considering the M.Ed degree as valid. No costs.
Special Civil Application No. 11458 of 2021
4. The petitioner applied for the post of Shikshan Sahayak in Social Science subject in the category ST(Female). The merit of the petitioner was calculated at 67.1636. Her qualification was Masters in Arts from Page 4 of 14 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 28 21:09:02 IST 2022 C/SCA/5948/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2022 SNDT Women University and Masters in Education from Barkatullah Vishwavidyalaya. Her name appeared at Sr. No. 1317 in the merit list. She was called for document verification. At the time of document verification, she produced migration certificate, the recognition order, statement of marks, certificate of the college and the degree certificate etc. to suggest that she had undertaken her M.Ed at the University. However, the same was not considered as valid and she was not appointed though having a merit of 67.1636.
4.1 Mr. Rindani, learned counsel for the petitioner would draw the attention of the court to clause 23 of the instructions to the advertisement and submit that various documents such as migration certificate, proof of residence for the period of the course, certificate from the Registrar of the University were required to be produced. He submitted that all documents which sufficiently indicated that the petitioner had done her M.Ed from the University and the college were produced and tehrefore there was no reason why based on her merit mark of M.Ed that she was not admitted. Mr. Rindani therefore submitted that denial of appointment on the ground of not falling within merit was bad.
4.2 Mr. Utkarsh Sharma, learned AGP would submit relying on the report of the inquiry that the verification of the M.Ed mark-sheet was still pending. That the NCTE had still to confirm whether the M.Ed course was recognised. That the petitioner had done her M.A from SNDT University which is outside Gujarat.
4.3 Reading clause 23 would indicate that the sufficiency of the petitioner having done her M.Ed from the University was satisfied on the basis of the documents which she had produced which are referred to Page 5 of 14 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 28 21:09:02 IST 2022 C/SCA/5948/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2022 hereinabove and therefore the denial of appointment to the petitioner on the post of Shikshan Sahayak in the subject of Social Science was therefore bad. The petitioner is entitled to be considered for appointment and so appointed to the post of Shikshan Sahayak in the subject of Social Science considering merit 67.1636 instead of 63.18.
4.4 Petition is allowed. It is declared that the petitioner holds merit of 67.1636 and therefore in accordance with this merit that was in the provisional merit list first prepared, the petitioner is entitled to be appointed on the post of Shikshan Sahayak in Social Science subject. Respondents are directed to appoint the petitioner on the post in question considering the degree as valid. No costs.
Special Civil Application No. 11499 of 2021
5. The petitioner applied for the post of Shikshan Sahayak in Hindi subject in the category SEBC. The merit of the petitioner was calculated at 67.38 which was later on reduced to 64.25. His qualification was Masters in Arts in Hindi from Gujarat University and Masters in Education from Barkatullah Vishwavidyalaya. His name appeared at Sr. No. 207 in the merit list. He was called for document verification. At the time of document verification, he produced migration certificate, the recognition letter of NCTE, bonafide certificate of the college, certificate of the college, enrollment certificate and the degree certificate etc. to suggest that he had undertaken his M.Ed at the University. However, the same was not considered as valid and he was not appointed.
5.1 Mr. Rindani, learned counsel for the petitioner would draw the attention of the court to clause 23 of the instructions to the advertisement Page 6 of 14 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 28 21:09:02 IST 2022 C/SCA/5948/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2022 and submit that various documents such as migration certificate, proof of residence for the period of the course, certificate from the Registrar of the University were required to be produced. He submitted that all documents which sufficiently indicated that the petitioner had done his M.Ed from the University and the college were produced and tehrefore there was no reason why based on his merit mark of M.Ed that he was not admitted. Mr. Rindani therefore submitted that denial of appointment on the ground of not falling within merit was bad.
5.2 Mr. Utkarsh Sharma, learned AGP would submit relying on the report of the inquiry that the verification of the M.Ed mark-sheet was still pending. That the NCTE had still to confirm whether the M.Ed course was recognised.
5.3 Reading clause 23 would indicate that the sufficiency of the petitioner having done his M.Ed from the University was satisfied on the basis of the documents which he had produced which are referred to hereinabove and therefore the denial of appointment to the petitioner on the post of Shikshan Sahayak in the subject of Hindi was therefore bad. The petitioner is entitled to be considered for appointment and so appointed to the post of Shikshan Sahayak in the subject of Hindi considering merit 67.38 instead of 64.25.
5.4 Petition is allowed. It is declared that the petitioner holds merit of 67.38 and therefore in accordance with this merit that was in the provisional merit list first prepared, the petitioner is entitled to be appointed on the post of Shikshan Sahayak in Hindi subject. Respondents are directed to appoint the petitioner on the post in question considering the degree as valid. No costs.
Page 7 of 14 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 28 21:09:02 IST 2022C/SCA/5948/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2022 Special Civil Application No. 6444 of 2021
6. The petitioner applied for the post of Shikshan Sahayak in English subject in the female category. The merit of the petitioner was calculated at 61.07 which was later on reduced to 56.94. Her qualification was Masters in Arts in English and Masters in Education. She completed her M.Ed from D.Y. Patil College of Education, Pune. Her name appeared at Sr. No. 285 in the merit list. She was called for document verification. At the time of document verification, she produced the recognition letter of NCTE, bonafide certificate of the college, rent agreement to show that she was staying at a flat as her husband was employed in Pune and the degree certificate etc. to suggest that she had undertaken her M.Ed at the University. She also produced a certificate of having undertaken a common entrance test and a certificate from the Savitri Bai Phule, Pune University. However, the same was not considered as valid and she was not appointed.
6.1 Ms. Mamta Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioner would draw the attention of the court to clause 23 of the instructions to the advertisement and submit that various documents such as migration certificate, proof of residence for the period of the course, certificate from the Registrar of the University were required to be produced. She submitted that all documents which sufficiently indicated that the petitioner had done her M.Ed from the concerned college/University were produced and therefore there was no reason why based on her merit mark of M.Ed that she was not admitted. Ms. Vyas therefore submitted that denial of appointment on the ground of not falling within merit was bad.
Page 8 of 14 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 28 21:09:02 IST 2022C/SCA/5948/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2022 6.2 Mr. Utkarsh Sharma, learned AGP would submit relying on the
report of the inquiry that the verification of the M.Ed mark-sheet was still pending. That the NCTE had still to confirm whether the M.Ed course was recognised.
6.3 Reading clause 23 would indicate that the sufficiency of the petitioner having done her M.Ed from the concerned college/University was satisfied on the basis of the documents which she had produced which are referred to hereinabove and therefore the denial of appointment to the petitioner on the post of Shikshan Sahayak in the subject of English was bad. The petitioner is entitled to be considered for appointment and so appointed to the post of Shikshan Sahayak in the subject of English considering merit 61.07 instead of 56.94.
6.4 Petition is allowed. It is declared that the petitioner holds merit of 61.07 and therefore in accordance with this merit that was in the provisional merit list first prepared the petitioner is entitled to be appointed on the post of Shikshan Sahayak in English subject. Respondents are directed to appoint the petitioner on the post in question considering the degree as valid. Connected Civil Application also stands disposed of. No costs.
Special Civil Applications No. 12267, 6997, 6207, 6801, 6819, 6818 and 6502 of 2021 7.1 The petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 12267 of 2021 had applied for the post of Shikshan Sahayak. His qualification was post graduation from Rani Durgavati Vishwavidyalaya, Jabalpur. His name Page 9 of 14 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 28 21:09:02 IST 2022 C/SCA/5948/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2022 appeared at Sr. No. 415 in the merit list. He was called for document verification. At the time of document verification, he produced hall ticket, migration certificate, bonafide certificate of the college and the degree certificate etc. to suggest that he had undertaken her M.Ed at the University. However, the same was not considered as valid and he was not appointed.
7.2 The petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 6997 of 2021 applied for the post of Shikshan Sahayak in the subject of history. Her qualification was post graduation from Rani Durgavati Vishwavidyalaya, Jabalpur. She was called for document verification. At the time of document verification, she produced migration certificate, bonafide certificate of the college and the degree certificate etc. to suggest that she had undertaken her M.Ed at the University. However, the same was not considered as valid and she was not appointed.
7.3 The petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 6819 of 2021 applied for the post of Shikshan Sahayak in the subject of Economics. His qualification was post graduation from Swami Vivekananda Mahavidyalaya, Sagar. He was called for document verification. At the time of document verification, he produced migration certificate, hall ticket, degree certificate, mark-sheet, trial certificate, NCTE recognition letter etc. to suggest that he had undertaken her M.Ed at the concerned college/University. However, the same was not considered as valid and he was not appointed.
7.4 The petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 6818 of 2021 applied for the post of Shikshan Sahayak. Their qualifications were post graduation from Swami Vivekananda Mahavidyalaya, Sagar/Kamla Page 10 of 14 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 28 21:09:02 IST 2022 C/SCA/5948/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2022 Nehru Mahavidyalaya, Barkatullah University. They were called for document verification. At the time of document verification, they produced migration certificates, transfer certificates, bonafide certificates, degree certificates, NCTE recognition letters etc. to suggest that they had undertaken M.Ed at the concerned college/University. However, the same was not considered as valid and they were not appointed.
7.5 The petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 6502 of 2021 applied for the post of Shikshan Sahayak. Their qualifications were post graduation from Swami Vivekananda Mahavidyalaya, Sagar/Kamla Nehru Mahavidyalaya, Barkatullah University. They were called for document verification. At the time of document verification, they produced migration certificates, transfer certificates, bonafide certificates, degree certificates, NCTE recognition letters etc. to suggest that they had undertaken M.Ed at the concerned college/University. However, the same was not considered as valid and they were not appointed.
7.6 The petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 6207 of 2021 had applied for the post of Shikshan Sahayak. His qualification was post graduation from Swami Vivekananda Mahavidyalaya. His name appeared at Sr. No. 765 in the merit list. He was called for document verification. At the time of document verification, he produced hall ticket, migration certificate, bonafide certificate of the college, recognition of the NCTE and the degree certificate etc. to suggest that he had undertaken his M.Ed at Swami Vivekananda Mahavidyalaya. However, the same was not considered as valid and he was not appointed.
7.7 Mr. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioners would draw the attention of the court to clause 23 of the instructions to the advertisement Page 11 of 14 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 28 21:09:02 IST 2022 C/SCA/5948/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2022 and submit that various documents such as migration certificate, proof of residence for the period of the course, certificate from the Registrar of the University were required to be produced. He submitted that all documents which sufficiently indicated that the petitioners had done their M.Ed from the University and the college were produced and therefore there was no reason why based on their merit mark of M.Ed that they were not admitted. He therefore submitted that denial of appointment on the ground of not falling within merit was bad.
7.7 Mr. Utkarsh Sharma, learned AGP would submit relying on the report of the inquiry that the verification of the M.Ed mark-sheet was still pending. That the NCTE had still to confirm whether the M.Ed course was recognised. As per the affidavit and the report, in case of certain petitioners, NCTE recognition was not furnished and also not produced any rent agreement and therefore not entitled.
7.8 Reading clause 23 would indicate that the sufficiency of the petitioners having done their M.Ed/post graduation from the University was satisfied on the basis of the documents which they had produced which are referred to hereinabove and therefore the denial of appointment to the petitioners on the post of Shikshan Sahayak in the respective subjects was therefore bad. The petitioners are entitled to be considered for appointment and so appointed to the post of Shikshan Sahayak in the respective subjects.
7.9 Petitions are allowed. In accordance with the merit that was in the provisional merit list first prepared the petitioners are entitled to be appointed on the post of Shikshan Sahayak in the respective subjects. Respondents are directed to appoint the petitioners on the post in question Page 12 of 14 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 28 21:09:02 IST 2022 C/SCA/5948/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2022 considering the M.Ed /post graduation degree as valid. Connected Civil Applications also stand disposed of. No costs.
Special Civil Application No. 5948 of 2021
8. The petitioner applied for the post of Shikshan Sahayak. Her qualification was Masters in Education from School of Education, Devi Ahilya Vishwavidyalaya, Indore. She was called for document verification. At the time of document verification, she did not produce the relevant documents to show that she had undertaken her M.Ed course from the University or School of Education.
8.1 Non-selection was challenged by Mr. Mangukiya, that the respondents could not insist on producing document like hall ticket.
8.2 Mr. Utkarsh Sharma, learned AGP would submit that when the team visited the institution and asked for the recognition and degree certificate etc. the institute could not provide the same. No proof was produced of the petitioner having stayed in the girls' hostel. In other words, not one document was produced. Therefore she was not appointed.
8.3 Perusal of the petition would indicate that except for the submission that the respondents could not ask for production of a hall ticket, as there was no system of issuance of it, is the only ground. Unlike in other cases, no documents are produced by the petitioner to satisfy this court of the petitioner having completed her course from the concerned College/University and therefore the petition deserves to be dismissed.
Page 13 of 14 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 28 21:09:02 IST 2022C/SCA/5948/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2022 8.4 Accordingly petition is dismissed. No costs.
9. Direct service is permitted in all the petitions.
(BIREN VAISHNAV, J) DIVYA Page 14 of 14 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 28 21:09:02 IST 2022