Mahida Jayendrasinh Mahendrasinh & 6 vs State Of Gujarat & on 2 March, 2015
It has to be considered with reference to the
observations made by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this court
in the case of Prajapati Paresh Govindbhai and ors. v.
State of Gujarat through Principal Secretary and Ors.
(supra) which has also been relied upon by learned Counsel
Shri Pujara. The Hon'ble Division Bench referred to the
minimum qualification and has clearly observed that if the
basic qualification is possessed and the TET examination is
conducted in common for all such eligible candidates for the
post of language teachers then one would be considered on the
basis of the performance in the selection process or the test
and the appointment has to be made on the basis of the
selection and the merit of the candidate in the particular
recruitment whether he is a science graduate or a social
studies or like in the present case whether one has passed the
Page 18 of 25
C/SCA/18101/2014 JUDGMENT
B.A. or B.Com with English or Hindi or any other language. The
submissions which have been made by learned AGP Shri Raval
that mere selection does not justify the claim for appointment
referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court is also
misconceived inasmuch as it has to be read in the context and
background of the facts that even after selection, if for reasons
justifiable the appointment may not be made. On the other
hand there would be an obligation once the recruitment
procedure is followed and the person who is selected can claim
appointment and cannot be denied such appointment without
any justification or reason. In the facts of the case as stated
above, therefore, common merit list has to be prepared as a
selection of teacher for the language based on the performance
in the test and thereafter at the time of posting the bifurcation
could be made in exercise of administrative discretion to serve
the purpose. In any view of the matter the interest of justice
would be served if the alternate prayer which has been pressed
by learned Counsel Shri Pujaraj that total number of 548
vacancies may be filled up by selected candidates on equal
ratio for all the four languages, require consideration as more
reasonable and practical. In fact in fairness it must be stated
that when during the course of the hearing learned AGP Shri
Raval was suggested to examine he has placed on record the
communication dated 11.2.2015 from the education
department to follow such pattern of bifurcation of the total
Page 19 of 25
C/SCA/18101/2014 JUDGMENT
number of posts in equal proportion, i.e. 25% of the total seat
for each respective language - English, Hindi, Gujarati and
Sanskrit for future for the recruitment in the year 2015-2016.
Thus, in principle, the Respondent government has positively
responded for the rational approach for future. However,
learned AGP Shri Raval has stated that for the present it may
not be possible as the posts have been advertised and the
decision has been taken by the government for bifurcation in
the ratio of 49% for English language and the remaining 51%
for three languages i.e. 17% each for Hindi, Gujarati and
Sanskrit. Again, a close scrutiny of this submission with
reference to the factual background would suggest that the
apprehension or the submission is not well-founded. The
advertisement which is produced at Annexure-B referred to the
total number of 548 posts as language teachers without any
further bifurcation subject-wise. Thus the recruitment is for the
post of language teachers which may include teachers of all the
four languages. Therefore, there should not be any difficulty
for the purpose of such bifurcation as suggested in the
alternate prayer that the selected candidates may be given
appointment for the respective language teacher in equal
proportion i.e. 25% each for English, Hindi, Gujarati and
Sanskrit. The decision for bifurcation as stated above is taken
by the government subsequently which is an administrative
decision taken subsequently for the requirement or the
Page 20 of 25
C/SCA/18101/2014 JUDGMENT
feasibility of the number of teachers for the respective
language. It is also taken note of the fact that the teachers for
the Sanskrit language may be required less than the teachers
for the English language. Thus, in future either they may have
a detailed bifurcation at the very inception which could be
reflected in the advertisement itself. For the present, as there
are common recruitment as a language teacher it is desirable
to have a bifurcation of 25% in equal proportion for every
language which would serve the purpose. In any view of the
matter as stated above, the Respondents are required to
prepare a common merit list and then at the time of giving
posting it could be worked out in the manner which leaves the
equal number or equal proportion of teachers for every
language.