Gujarat High Court
Dave Jaydevbhai Sureshbhai vs State Of Gujarat Through Secretary on 17 February, 2020
Author: Biren Vaishnav
Bench: Biren Vaishnav
C/SCA/5936/2017 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5936 of 2017
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5669 of 2017
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6434 of 2017
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14409 of 2018
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to NO
see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the NO
judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law NO
as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any
order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
VAISHNANI ARPITKUMAR RASIKLAL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 2 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS MAMTA R VYAS(994) for the Petitioner(s) in SCA Nos.5936 and 5669 of
2017
MR.SUBRAMANIAM IYER for the Petitioner(s) in SCA No.14409 of 2018
MR.SUDHANSHU JHA for the Petitioner(s) in SCA No.6434 of 2017
MS.AISHVARYA GUPTA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED BY DS(5) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
Date : 17/02/2020
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
Page 1 of 18
Downloaded on : Sun Jun 14 09:50:16 IST 2020
C/SCA/5936/2017 JUDGMENT
1. By way of all these petitions filed by the candidates whose candidature for appointment to the post of Shikshan Sahayaks (Gujarati Medium) in the subject of of Maths and Science was rejected, are before this Court. The common issue involved is whether their qualification in graduation and post graduation in Biotechnology could have been a disqualification for their selection as teachers in the subject of Biology.
Facts:
Special Civil Application No.5936 of 2017
2. The petitioner possesses the qualification of B.Sc., M.Sc. and B.Ed. B.Sc. and M.Sc. is with a special subject of Biotechnology. The petitioner passed his TAT examination in the year 2014 in the subject of Maths and Science. On the assessment based on his qualifications, the petitioner was in merit at 57.16%. In January 2017, pursuant to the advertisement when he was assessed as above and put in the provisional merit list, he expected to be appointed. However, his form was rejected on the ground that he was not possessing qualification of B.Sc in Maths and Science. Hence, the petition.
Special Civil Application No.5669 of 2017
3. The petitioner possesses the qualification of B.Sc., M.Sc. and B.Ed. She cleared her TAT examinations in 2014. Pursuant to the advertisement of Shikshan Sahayaks (Gujarati Medium) she applied. She was given marks as per resolution dated 18.04.2012, 30% weightage for degree and 70% on the basis of TAT result. Since her principal subject in B.Sc. And M.Sc. was Biotechnology, her candidature was rejected on the Page 2 of 18 Downloaded on : Sun Jun 14 09:50:16 IST 2020 C/SCA/5936/2017 JUDGMENT ground that she was not possessing the qualification of B.Sc. In Maths and Science.
Special Civil Application No.14409 of 2018
4. Here also, the petitioners who possess the degree of B.Sc. and M.Sc. in Biotechnology applied for the post of Shikshan Sahayaks but their qualification was not considered as a requisite qualification for appointment. They preferred Special Civil Application No.18114 of 2017. This Court by an order dated 18.04.2018 disposed of the petition observing that as during the pendency of the petition, the Government had forward a resolution dated 21.12.2017 whereby it is provided that the subject of B.Sc. Biotechnology and M.Sc. Biotechnology are to be considered as subjects for secondary and higher secondary section, the decision be taken. By the impugned communication in the petition dated 18.07.2018 it is conveyed to the petitioners that the resolution of 21.12.2017 would apply from the date of the resolution.
Special Civil Application No.6434 of 2017
5. The petitioner, pursuant to his passing the TAT 2014 exam in the subject of Maths and Science applied for the post of Shikshan Sahayak (Gujarati Medium) with regard to the January 2017 advertisement. His candidature was rejected on the ground that he has not done B.Sc. in subject of Maths and Science. The petitioner did his B.Sc. and M.Sc. in a special subject of Biotechnology.
6. Heard Ms.Mamta Vyas, Mr.Subramaniam Iyer and Mr.Sudhanshu Jha for the petitioners. The submissions are as under:
Page 3 of 18 Downloaded on : Sun Jun 14 09:50:16 IST 2020C/SCA/5936/2017 JUDGMENT (I) The advertisement was for Shikshan Sahayaks in the government secondary schools. The selection was on the
basis of the result of TAT examination of 2014. In the TAT examinations, the only paper that the candidate has to appear in is that of Maths and Science. There is no special classification of subjects.
(II) The Teachers of Government Secondary and Higher Secondary Schools (Procedure for Selection) Rules, 2012 especially Rule 7 vide notification dated 18.04.2012 provided that in order to be eligible to be appointed as a teacher, a candidate should possess the requisite educational qualification in accordance with Regulation 20 of the Gujarat Secondary and Higher Secondary and Higher Secondary Regulations 1974. The regulation provided for a degree in any faculty. Though, by a subsequent amendment in Rule 7, the requisite qualification required was a Bachelor's degree in Arts or Science or Commerce or an equivalent qualification, having done B.Sc. or M.Sc. in a special subject of Bio- technology is good enough as it is a part of Biology.
(III) The select list is prepared in accordance with Rule 11 where for educational qualification, the weightage is 30% whereas 70% weightage is given to TAT examination and therefore merely because the subject is Biotechnology the same should not disentitle the petitioners from being appointed.
(IV) The Government has come out with two resolutions dated 21.12.2017 and 08.06.2018 whereby it is now recognized that the candidature based on the passing of Page 4 of 18 Downloaded on : Sun Jun 14 09:50:16 IST 2020 C/SCA/5936/2017 JUDGMENT graduation and/or post graduation in the subject of Biochemistry will not be treated as a disqualification for recruitment in the concerned subject.
(V) That in respect of the same advertisement and recruitment, two teachers have been appointed in Dev-Bhumi Dwarka where their main subjects were Biotechnology.
7. Ms.Aishvarya Gupta learned Assistant Government Pleader has appeared and contested all these petitions. Reliance is placed on the affidavit-in-reply filed in the petitions. Her submissions are as under:
(I) In the advertisement itself the amended Rule 7 vide notification dated 02.04.2013 was mentioned. To be eligible for appointment, a candidate must possess a Bachelor's degree in Arts or Science or Commerce. Recruitment was in government schools and therefore Regulation 20 would not be applicable.
(II) When the petitioners filled in their applications online, the annexure to the advertisement clearly had a tabular format which provided that in order to apply for a subject of Maths and Science, the main subjects ought to be Maths/Physics/Chemistry/Biology/Botany/Zoology.
Biotechnology found no place and therefore cannot be said to be an equivalent qualification or a qualification in the concerned subject. The petitioners were therefore not alloted any marks for the qualification of the concerned subjects. Based on their assessments, even if they had been assessed on TAT result, the combined marks were much below the cut-
Page 5 of 18 Downloaded on : Sun Jun 14 09:50:16 IST 2020C/SCA/5936/2017 JUDGMENT off marks obtained.
(III) The Gujarat Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Regulations, 1974, are applicable only to private and grant-in- aid secondary and higher secondary schools and not to government schools. As far as government secondary schools are concerned, they are governed by the Gujarat Secondary and Higher Secondary School (Procedure for Selection) Rules, 2012. Rule 7 therefore as reiterated provides for eligibility and the petitioners are clearly ineligible.
8. Having considered the submissions of the learned advocates for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms.Aishvarya Gupta, the following issues arise.
(A) Perusal of the advertisement for recruitment of Shikshan Sahayaks (Gujarati Medium) indicates that the eligibility has to be in accordance with the Rules as per notifications dated 18.04.2012 and 02.04.2013.
(B) The eligibility therefore, in that perspective when considered, is that the candidate must have a degree in any faculty. By virtue of an amended notification of 02.04.2013, the expression "faculty" has been elaborated and made more specific as of possessing a Degree in the faculty of Arts or Science or Commerce. When this eligibility is juxtaposed with the criteria of weightage of 70% of TAT marks the only papers for which a candidate has to appear for the post of Shikshan Sahayak is the subject of Maths and Science. Perusal of the TAT code at page 83 of the reply paperbook would suggest Page 6 of 18 Downloaded on : Sun Jun 14 09:50:16 IST 2020 C/SCA/5936/2017 JUDGMENT that it is only a subject of Maths and Science. There is no micro classification of a "concerned subject" in as much as Biology etc. The online table on which reliance is placed, only elaborates the branches of Science and cannot be said to be an exclusive classification so as to exclude a branch of Bio- technology from Biology. This kind of a classification cannot be read into the rules to deny the candidature.
(C) Even if the subsequent notification dated 21.12.2017 is perused and kept in view of the two appointments made in Dev-Bhoomi Dwarka it is evident that based on recognizing the fact that Biotechnology is a branch of Biology and that it is in a faculty of Science, the eligibility criteria so prescribed under notification dated 18.04.2012 and 02.04.2013 stand satisfied.
(D) As argued by Shri Subramaniam Iyer, this Court considering the argument is in agreement with his submission that there is no Degree awarded by any University in Gujarat called B.Sc. (Biology) or M.Sc. (Biology). Biology is the basic science whereas Biotechnology is much more more advanced stage of Biology. Some excerpts of the difference are reproduced hereunder:
"What is the difference between biotechnology and biology?
Saurabh Katyayan, M.Tech (Trained @ BARC) Biotechnology, Bhabha Atomic Research Center) Biotechnology is a branch of science in which the biological, physical & chemical - all 3 Tools and techniques are used/devised in order to reduce time, cost, risk involved in the production or Page 7 of 18 Downloaded on : Sun Jun 14 09:50:16 IST 2020 C/SCA/5936/2017 JUDGMENT maintenance of a process.
Biotech can be used to create new products or same old products with new processes.
This branch is combination of microbiology (bacterial culture growth), chemical Technology (buffer and pH maintenance), physical stress and strain (protein extraction and purification), electrical and wave nature of particles (x-ray diffraction techniques to study active site of enzymes), Biology (animal testing), and god knows every known science to human being.
This was termed "bio" + "technology" as it was aimed to exploit the in vivo properties in biological processes (eg - bioremediation) for the production of many indigenous products (eg- insulin) on large scale using industrial measures (eg-bioreactors).
Priyadarshini Kaundinya R. [M. TECH Biotechnology, IAMR GHAZIABAD (2017)] In simple language, biology is a science while biotechnology is a branch of biology. It is an industry. While biology involves the study of living organisms, biotechnology involves the use of biology for the benefit of the mankind. Biotechnology involves various techniques like genetic manipulation of microbes to obtain industrial products.
Vipul Kumar, B. Tech Biotecnology, (Lovely Professional University) Answer in very simple words Biology deals with the study of living organisms While Biotechnology deals with the manipulation of living organisms for the betterment of mankind."
(E) Even as submitted by Shri Iyer, it would be relevant to reproduce paras 11 and 16 of the decision of this Court in the case of Prajapati Paresh Govindbhai and Ors. v. State of Page 8 of 18 Downloaded on : Sun Jun 14 09:50:16 IST 2020 C/SCA/5936/2017 JUDGMENT Gujarat and others reported in 2012 (1) GLH 548.
"11. From the aforesaid provisions of the Act and the guidelines framed by NCTE, it appears that the minimum educational qualification for appearing at the TET cannot be altered by the State government by NCTE as provided in the Act and there is no dispute that graduation in any of the three streams
- Science, Arts or Commerce, is the minimum educational qualification for becoming a teacher in any of the subjects in Upper Primary Section without any restriction on the subjects. By the decision impugned in these writ-petitions, the State Government has disqualified a section of the applicants who are graduate and otherwise eligible for appearing at the TET in accordance with the norms fixed by the NCTE although the State has no right to disqualify an otherwise qualified candidate eligible to appear under the Act for the purpose of appearing at the TET..
...
16. By imposing restriction in the matter of qualification for sitting in the TET, the State Government has acted in violation of the Act as well as the guidelines framed by NCTE and thus, the aforesaid decision, which is the subject-matter of these writ-applications, is liable to quashed being violative of the provisions of the Act itself which does not authorize the State Government to deviate from the qualification fixed by the NCTE for becoming a teacher in upper primary Section."
(F) This Court, in case of Prakashkumar Jeshingbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat in Special Civil Application No.21005 of 2016 in the oral order dated 26.12.2018 discussed the rule position and held as under:
"4. In course of hearing, the parties appearing through their respective learned advocates were ad-idem that similar controversy involving identical issues was addressed by this court in Manish Mansukhbhai Raghadal vs. State of Gujarat being Special Civil Application No. 9331 of 2017 with Special Civil Page 9 of 18 Downloaded on : Sun Jun 14 09:50:16 IST 2020 C/SCA/5936/2017 JUDGMENT Application No. 11276 of 2017. The said petition was decided on 15.10.2018. The said judgment as on date stands final and no appeal is preferred thereagainst. It was submitted by learned advocate for the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to relief in this petition in view of the law laid down in Manish Mansukhbhai Raghadal (supra).
5. The court noticed the rival contentions in Manish Mansukhbhai Raghadal (supra) by elaborating thus, "4. Learned advocate for the petitioners Mr.R.V. Deshmukh submitted that the petitioners were selected by selection committee constituted under the Rules and the selection committee verified the educational qualifications and selected the petitioners. Learned advocate for the petitioners after emphasising that all the petitioners had at their graduate level the subject of Statistics and at the post-graduate level this subject was the main subject, further submitted that the petitioners were treated to be possessing the eligibility and were entitled to be issued the letters of recommendation.
It was submitted that in the facts and circumstances, a legitimate expectation arose for the petitioners to be appointed was right denied to them. According to learned advocate for the petitioners, the petitioners satisfied the eligibility criteria as contemplated.
4.1 On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.K.M. Antani vehemently opposed the case of the petitioners to submit on the basis of contentions raised in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of respondent No.2, that the petitioners did not possess the requisite qualifications as per the Rules notified by the Education Department by Notification dated 11th February, 2011. He relied on averments in paragraph 7 of the affidavit to contend that the required qualification for study in the subject of Statistics was not fulfilled. According to the affidavit- in-reply, the qualifications required were these for the higher secondary teacher-(i) Graduate Degree in concerned subject, (ii) Post Graduate Degree in concerned subject, (iii) Graduate Degree in professional subject i.e. B.Ed/B.P.Ed. etc. and (iv) Page 10 of 18 Downloaded on : Sun Jun 14 09:50:16 IST 2020 C/SCA/5936/2017 JUDGMENT Post Graduate Degree in professional subject i.e. M.Ed/M.P. Ed. Etc. (if possesses). For the post of secondary teacher, according to the contentions, following were the required qualifications-(i) Graduate Degree in concerned subject, (ii) Post Graduate Degree in concerned subject (if possesses),
(iii) Graduate Degree in professional subject i.e. B.Ed/B.P.Ed. etc. (iv) Post Graduate Degree in professional subject i.e. M.Ed/M.P. Ed. Etc. (if possesses).
4.2 It was contended that none of the petitioners who had applied for the post of Shikshan Sahayak had the Statistics subject as main subject in the graduation degree as well as post-graduation degree. It was stated that the petitioner No.1 had passed B.Com. in Auditing and Management Account. Similar were the qualifications of the other petitions, contended learned Assistant Government Pleader. The crux of the objection of the respondents were that the petitioners had studied the subject of Statistics as only one of the subjects but they had not specialised in the said subject as far as graduation level study was concerned. The Statistics was the main subject only at the post-graduation level which by itself did not meet the requirement as the subject of Statistics was also necessary to be the main subject at the graduation level, according to the stand of the respondents".
5.1 In Manish Mansukhbhai Raghadal (supra) the court considered the relevant rules and its purport and the effect. Extracting the relevant portion to be as under, adopted as part of reasoning in the present case also, "5.1 The Rules called Teachers and Headmasters of Registered Private Secondary and Higher Secondary Schools (Procedure For Selection) Rules, 2011, provides for selection procedure. Rule 4 deals with the selection of Teachers and Headmasters which states that the selection committee shall select the persons for appointment on the said post in the registered private schools from amongst the persons who are qualified to be appointed as per the provisions of the Rules. The selection committee undertakes the process of inviting applications, recommending the Page 11 of 18 Downloaded on : Sun Jun 14 09:50:16 IST 2020 C/SCA/5936/2017 JUDGMENT names of the candidates and carrying out the selection.
5.2 The eligibility for appointment is provided for in Rule 7. Rule 7 reads as under.
"7. Eligibility for appointment:- To be eligible for appointment as Teacher or Head Master, a candidate shall possess-
(a) requisite educational qualifications and age in accordance with the provisions of the Gujarat Secondary Education Regulations, 1974; and
(b) basic knowledge of computer application as prescribed in Gujarat Civil Services Classification and Recruitment (General) Rules 1967:
Provided that the age limit shall be relaxed in favour of a candidate belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Socially and Educationally Backward class and women in accordance with the provision of the Gujarat Civil Services Classification and Recruitment (General) Rules, 1967."
5.3 Rule 9 provides for application for the post of Headmaster, Rule 10 provides for scrutiny of applications, whereas Rule 11 deals with the preparation of the selection list. Rules 11 may be extracted in its relevant portion.
"11. Preparation of select list:-
(1) (a) The selection committee shall prepare a list on teh basis of weightage of 70% marks of the marks secured by the concerned candidate in Teacher's Aptitude Test to be conducted atleast once in a year by Gujarat Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Board, Gandhinagar.
(b) ... ... ...
(c) ... ... ...
(d) ... ... ...
(2) The weightage of 30% will be given, out of the marks secured in teh prescribed educational Page 12 of 18 Downloaded on : Sun Jun 14 09:50:16 IST 2020 C/SCA/5936/2017 JUDGMENT qualification for the concerned post. (Please see the example in Appendix II) (3) The maximum marks for the qualification for the purpose of weightage of 30% shall be as prescribed in Appendix I. (4) The Selection Committee shall prepare subject-wise and category-wise lists on the basis of marks secured by the concerned candidates as provided in sub-rules (a) and (b) above. (5) The selection committee shall prepare a list of teh successful candidates in the order of merit on the basis of aggregate marks finally awarded to each candidate as provided under sub-rule (d) above limited to the number of posts advertised by the selection committee. (6) The selection committee shall prepare a separate list of successful candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Socially and Educationally Backward classes and women to the extent of the number of vacandies reserved for such categories.
Provided that where the requisite number of candidates, belonging to Scheduled Casts, Scheduled Tribes, Socially and Educationally Backward Class or, as the case may be Nomadic Tribes and Denotified Tribes, could not qualify on the basis of the qualifying aggregate marks fixed for general category, the selection committee may relax the qualifying aggregate marks to make up the deficiency in these reserved posts. (7) The selection committee shall prepare subject-wise and category-wise waiting lists, showing the names of the candidates of about 10% of the list of successful candidates so prepared under sub-rules (2) and (3) above. (8) The waiting lists referred to in sub-rule (7) shall be operative for a period of two years from the date of publication of the result or till the date of publication of the result of the next examination, which ever is earlier."
(9) The waiting list may be operative in the following circumstances:-
(i) If the post of Headmaster or Secondary teacher or higher secondary teacher is not filled up due to non-joining of the selected candidate in the prescribed Page 13 of 18 Downloaded on : Sun Jun 14 09:50:16 IST 2020 C/SCA/5936/2017 JUDGMENT time limit.
(ii) If the selected candidate is disqualified for appointment for any of the reasons."
5.4 This Rule thus contemplates giving of weightage on the basis of the educational qualification held by the candidate. It provides that selection committee shall prepare a list on the basis of weightage of 70% marks of the marks secured by the concerned candidate in Teachers' Aptitude Test. It further says that the candidate who has secured at least 50 marks in the Teachers' Aptitude Test (TAT) shall be considered as qualified for TAT weightage. The petitioners have passed the TAT.
5.5 What is further provided, and which is relevant, is in sub-rule (2) and sub-rule (3) of Rule 11. Sub-rule (2) speaks of giving weightage of 30% out of the marks secured in the prescribed educational qualification for the concerned post as per the example given in Appendix II. Under sub-rule (3), it is stated that the maximum marks for the qualification for the purpose of weightage of 30% shall be as per Appendix II. For the post of Higher Secondary Teacher.
5.6 The table indicating the weightage which is part of Appendix II of the Rules, is extracted hereunder.
"For the post of Higher Secondary Teacher:-
No Qualification Maximum For example . Marks Percentage Marks secured by eligible the on the candidate basis of percenta ge secured by the candidate (col.3xcol .4/100) 1 2 3 4 5 1 Graduate 10 70 7.0 degree in concerned Page 14 of 18 Downloaded on : Sun Jun 14 09:50:16 IST 2020 C/SCA/5936/2017 JUDGMENT subject 2 Post Graduate 10 60 6.0 degree in concerned subject 3 Graduate 5 80 4.0 degree in professional subject i.e. B.Ed./B.P.Ed.
etc.
4 Post Graduate 50 60 3.0
degree in
professional
subject i.e.
M.Ed./M.P.Ed.
etc.
30 20
5.7 The Rules therefore provide that the candidates who satisfy the eligibility criteria under Rule 7 shall be further treated for the purpose of preparing select list under Rule 11. In preparation of the select list, the candidates are to be treated for giving weightage on the basis of the marks they may have secured in the subject concerned. This is a stage after the stage of ascertainment of the eligibility and after short-listing the eligible candidates who will be, in the subsequent stage, would be ranked in the order of selection after giving the weightage as contemplated under Rule 11 read with the Appendix I and II to the Rule."
5.2 The court thereafter observed, "6. As noticed, the eligibility contemplated under Rule 7 is the requisite educational qualification and age in accordance with the provisions of the Gujarat Secondary Education Regulations, 1974. The Regulations of 1974 do not lay down the educational qualification for the post of Teacher, however Government Resolution dated 28th October, 1975, referred to in the advertisement as well under the eligibility condition, provides for the qualification Page 15 of 18 Downloaded on : Sun Jun 14 09:50:16 IST 2020 C/SCA/5936/2017 JUDGMENT required to be held by the candidate. The requisite qualification prescribed under this Resolution is, "Trained Teachers having second class Master's Degree in respective subject or trained graduate Teachers who have experience of teaching in concerned subject for about seven years in standards 10 and 11". The respondent authorities have not been disputing that the petitioners satisfy this criteria to meet the eligibility.
5.3 This court stated that the provisions for giving weightage was not to be confused with the concept of criteria provided for eligibility.
"The weightage to be given in terms of Rule 11 of the Rules read with the Appendix as above, is not the eligibility. The weightage to be given on the basis of the possessed qualification and the criteria for eligibility are two different aspects. When the weightage is given with reference to certain qualification and when such weightage is counted under the Rules for the purpose of preparing selection list on teh basis of merit marks so obtained of candidates, such weightage cannot be treated as part of eligibility. The eligibility consists of criteria separately provided. The weightage does not determine the selection itself. It is an additional benefit to be applied or to be given to the eligibles to be selected in the order amongst the eligible candidates. The weightage to be given could be said to be part of procedure of selection and not the part of the criteria to be in the eligibility zone. Therefore, the provision for giving weightage in the Rules is not to be confused with the concept or criteria of eligibility."
(para-7) 5.4 The further factual position was noticed as under, "9. Furthermore, it is undisputed that when the advertisement in question was issued on 15th April, 2016 and the selection of Teaches thereunder took place, aforementioned Rules dated 11th February, 2011 read with the Resolutions dated 28th October, 1975 and 08th October, 2009 were to be applied. The petitioners expected for issuance of the letter Page 16 of 18 Downloaded on : Sun Jun 14 09:50:16 IST 2020 C/SCA/5936/2017 JUDGMENT of recommendations but either the said was not acted upon or they were withdrawn. The appointment orders to the candidates considered eligible were issued in December, 2017. There was no provision regarding the criteria of Statistics to be the main subject in the Gujarat Secondary Education Regulations, 1974.
9.1 The eligibility on this score came to be specified and prescribed subsequently and in that regard Resolution dated 08th June, 2018 was issued by the Education Department of the State Government. The eligibility criteria providing for the subject required to be possessed by the candidates for being appointed to the post in question came to be inserted in Regulation 20(3) to 20(8) as per the recommendations in the expert committee meeting dated 07th March, 2018, pursuant to which the aforesaid Resolution was issued. Respondent No.2 has produced the said Resolution dated 08th June, 2018 for seeking reliance thereon for submitting that the petitioners did not possess the eligibility with regard to the subject required to be part of the eligibility.
9.2 Thus it was admittedly in the year 2018 only that the subject of Statistics was provided to be the main subject required in the graduation and post- graduation level. This provision was made in Resolution dated 08th June, 2018, which, in any view, cannot apply retrospectively and would apply only prospectively. On the said count, the petitioners eligibility is not affected when they possessed the requisite eligibility prevalent and in force when they underwent the selection process. The denial of appointment to the petitioners could not hold good."
9. Based on the same reasonings therefore too, the petitions deserve to be allowed particularly when persons holding similar qualifications have been appointed in pursuance of the same recruitment process.
10. The impugned action on the part of the respondents in Page 17 of 18 Downloaded on : Sun Jun 14 09:50:16 IST 2020 C/SCA/5936/2017 JUDGMENT not issuing appointment letters to the petitioners for the post of Shikshan Sahayaks in the subject of Maths and Science is set aside. The respondents are directed to issue appointment orders to the petitioners forthwith. The petitions are allowed with consequential benefits to follow. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
(BIREN VAISHNAV, J) ANKIT SHAH Page 18 of 18 Downloaded on : Sun Jun 14 09:50:16 IST 2020