Gujarat High Court
Motaval Nareshkumar Babarbhai vs State Of Gujarat & on 4 July, 2017
Author: Mohinder Pal
Bench: Mohinder Pal
C/SCA/18781/2015 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18781 of 2015
With
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1907 of 2017
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18781 of 2015
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL
==========================================================
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 ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of
law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of
India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
MOTAVAL NARESHKUMAR BABARBHAI....Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR KB PUJARA, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR TIRTHRAJ PANDYA AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1, 2
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL
Date : 04/07/2017
Page 1 of 8
HC-NIC Page 1 of 8 Created On Sun Jul 23 11:15:32 IST 2017
C/SCA/18781/2015 JUDGMENT
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. With the consent of the parties, this matter is taken up for final disposal.
2. Rule. Learned AGP, Mr.Tirthraj Pandya, waives service of rule on behalf of respondents.
3. Petitioner, through this petition, has challenged the action of respondents in wrongfully denying the appointment to the petitioner as Head Teacher (Class-III) pursuant to the advertisement dated 8.12.2014.
4. Respondent issued an advertisement dated 8.12.2014 (Annexure-A) for recruitment of 2467 posts of Head Teacher (Class-III) and out of which, 164 vacancies are reserved for Scheduled Caste. Since 7% reservation was there for candidates of Scheduled Caste, 173 vacancies should have been reserved for them. Petitioner was a candidate belonging to Scheduled Caste having passed M.A. & B.Ed. Examination. He has also passed examination of H-TAT (Head Teacher Aptitude Test). As per petitioner's merit of 61.12 marks, he was given General Category Merit No.OPOO2212 and Reserved Category Merit No.SC000322. As he was coming within the required merit of giving an appointment, he was issued call letter dated 16.3.2015 for remaining present for verification of documents and District Selection on 19.3.2015. Petitioner was required to submit necessary proof of experience as per Government Resolution (GR) dated 16.5.2012 referred to in the said call letter. It is case of the petitioner that he remained present before the respondents on 19.3.2015 with all his original documents Page 2 of 8 HC-NIC Page 2 of 8 Created On Sun Jul 23 11:15:32 IST 2017 C/SCA/18781/2015 JUDGMENT to show that he was possessing requisite experience of 5 years as his total experience of last date of submitting the application for H-TAT was 5 years, 10 months and 7 days. However, without any legal justification and without passing any order, respondents arbitrarily declined to give selection of the district and appointment to the petitioner. The concerned employee of the respondent who was verifying the documents only orally told the petitioner that his document did not satisfy the requirement of experience. Thereafter, petitioner immediately approached the then Deputy Director of Primary Education, Dr.B.K.Trivedi and ventilated his grievance whereby, Dr.B.K.Trivedi told the petitioner to come on 22nd March, 2015 along with the Annual Inspection Report for the year 2006-2007. Petitioner accordingly went to respondents on 22.3.2015 along with Annual Inspection Report of 2006-2007. However, petitioner was arbitrarily denied the selection of the District and appointment orders. Hence, petitioner filed the present petition.
5. After notice, respondents have contested this petition by filing reply stating therein that, as per GR dated 16.5.2012, certain documents, specified in this resolution, were required to be provided by the petitioner. As the petitioner has failed to provide the experience certificate pertaining to the year 2002-2003, he has been rightly denied the appointment. Further, it is further case of the respondents that in pursuance to the advertisement dated 8.12.2014, complete process of selection is already over and as such, petitioner could not raise his grievance by filing this petition at this Page 3 of 8 HC-NIC Page 3 of 8 Created On Sun Jul 23 11:15:32 IST 2017 C/SCA/18781/2015 JUDGMENT stage. Further, it is their case that fresh advertisement has been issued on 22.2.2017 and as such, the present petition was liable to be dismissed.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has fully satisfied the respondents regarding requirements of experience of being appointed as Head Teacher (Class-III) in accordance with advertisement dated 8.12.2014 and GR dated 16.5.2014 issued by the respondents. It has been argued that all the documents concerning the qualification and experience has been provided by the petitioner along with the application. However, the respondents arbitrarily raised the dispute regarding experience of the petitioner pertaining to the year 2006-2007 when he was working in Shantanu Vidhyalaya. Learned counsel has referred to page No.45 of his application form; wherein, experience certificate duly stamped by the institute has been attached. It has been argued that list of teachers working in this institute pertaining to the year 2006-2007 was also attached along with the application. However, respondents have intentionally ignored the same. It has been argued that the list of teachers working in that Institute was also available with respondents but without checking their own record, the petitioner is denied appointment. Finally, it has been argued that in absence of anything in writing regarding the application of the petitioner, the action of the respondents was liable to be quashed and set aside by directing the respondents to issue appointment letter to the petitioner.
Page 4 of 8
HC-NIC Page 4 of 8 Created On Sun Jul 23 11:15:32 IST 2017
C/SCA/18781/2015 JUDGMENT
7. Aforementioned contention raised by the learned
counsel for the petitioner have been controverted by
learned AGP while referring to the conditions contained in the advertisement and GR dated 16.5.2012 vide which the petitioner was required to produce the proof of his experience regarding working at various places.
8. This Court has considered the submissions of both the sides.
9. The application of the petitioner and the fact that petitioner has secured 61.12 marks and has stood in general category merit No.OPOO2212, is not in dispute. The original record concerning this case was summoned in the Court. The copy of document submitted by the petitioner along with the copy of application are made part of the Court file. Perusal of these documents show that the petitioner has worked in following Institutes. The details of which are as under:
Sr. Name of the District Taluka / Village/ Address Total Details of No. School City Ward of the experi- experience No./ school ence of Name school 1 Atri Bharuch Ankleshw Ankleshw Gadkhol 10 5.6.2002 to Vidhyabhavan ar ar Patia, Months, 30.4.2003 Ankleshw 25 days ar 2 Shantanu Bharcuh Ankleshw Andada Village 9 10.6.2006 to Vidhyalaya ar Andada, Months, 2.5.2007 Tal. 22 days Ankleshw ar, Dist.
Bharcuh
3 Rajarshi Bharuch Jaghadia Bamalla Village: 8 12.7.2007 to
Vidhya Mandir Bamalla, Months, 31.3.2008
Dist. 19 days
Bharuch
4 C.K.G. High Bharuch Jaghadia Govali Govali, 1 year, 8 1.10.2008 to
School Govali Dist. months 1.6.2010
Page 5 of 8
HC-NIC Page 5 of 8 Created On Sun Jul 23 11:15:32 IST 2017
C/SCA/18781/2015 JUDGMENT
Bharuch
5 Sarashvati Vadodara Vadodara New Kadam 9 1.8.2012 to
Vidyalaya Sama Nagar, Months, 6.5.2013
Vadodara road, New 5 Days
Vadodara Sama
Road,
Vadodara
6 Atman Vadodara Vadodara Vadodara Old Padra 10 5.6.2013 to
Vidyalaya, Road, Months, 4.5.2014
Vadodara Vadodara 29 days
10. Respondents seem to have raised dispute regarding
experience of the petitioner pertaining to the year 2006- 07 on the ground that petitioner has placed on record certificate issued by Shantanu Vidhyalaya. However, the certificate was not having the name of the teachers who were teaching in that Institute at the relevant time. It will be necessary to point out that petitioner has further placed on record the list of the teachers who were working in that Institute at the relevant time. However, the respondents seem to have not been satisfied with that. As argued by learned counsel for the petitioner, if the respondents have any doubt, they could have asked the petitioner for further evidence or they could have crosschecked from the record maintained in the office of District Education Officer. Rather than making little effort, the respondents have preferred to reject the candidature of the petitioner arbitrarily and without any valid reason.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also raised the dispute regarding caste discrimination. As according to him, the other people from the general category, who were well below the petitioner, have been offered the appointment while the petitioner, though belonging to the Page 6 of 8 HC-NIC Page 6 of 8 Created On Sun Jul 23 11:15:32 IST 2017 C/SCA/18781/2015 JUDGMENT reserved category, who had come on general merit list, has been denied the appointment. This Court stops itself from further pointing out the arbitrary attitude of the respondents in denying the appointment to the petitioner.
However, the fact that the petitioner deserves to have been offered the appointment, cannot be denied.
12. It is case of the respondents that the petitioner was not having valid experience for the year 2006-2007 and has failed to prove the fact that he worked as Teacher in Shantanu Vidhyalaya in the year 2006-07. Merely, raising the oral defects while rejecting the candidature of the petitioner, cannot be appreciated. There is nothing in writing by the respondents to show that at any point of time, they had suspicion or have pointed out the difficulty in the application or the documents produced by the petitioner. Once again, this Court is in agreement with the arguments that if the respondents were having any doubt regarding experience that doubt could have been cleared well before rejecting the candidature of the petitioner as applications have been invited much prior to 19.3.2015 when the petitioner was asked to remain present along with the documents at 4.00 p.m. Otherwise also, it is highly doubtful whether respondents could have completed the formalities of candidates in one day including the interview in a day.
13. In view of the above, this petition is allowed. Respondents will offer to the petitioner an appointment for the post applied by him within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Page 7 of 8
HC-NIC Page 7 of 8 Created On Sun Jul 23 11:15:32 IST 2017
C/SCA/18781/2015 JUDGMENT
14. Undoubtedly, on behalf of the State, case has to be contested by learned Government Pleaders and litigation has to be borne by the State. However, awarding of cost against the State at this stage will further be burdened on the exchequer. Accordingly, this Court refrains from imposing heavy cost upon the respondents.
15. Rule is made absolute.
Order in Civil Application Since main petition has been allowed and respondents have been directed to offer appointment to the petitioner within a period of 15 days form the date of receipt of copy of this order, the application for interim direction does not survive. Therefore, same stands disposed of accordingly.
(MOHINDER PAL, J.) ashish Page 8 of 8 HC-NIC Page 8 of 8 Created On Sun Jul 23 11:15:32 IST 2017