Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.23 seconds)Food Corporation Of India & Ors vs Bhanu Lodh & Ors on 24 February, 2005
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.
K.Manjusree Etc vs State Of A.P & Anr on 15 February, 2008
In support of his submission, he has referred to
and relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of K.Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr.
(supra). He submitted that if the criteria which is now sought to
be claimed would amount to making change in the criteria and
it may lead to multiplicity of the proceedings and therefore he
tried to submit that the present petition may not be
entertained. Learned AGP Shri Raval has placed on record the
decision of the government which has suggested for alternate
prayer of learned Counsel Shri Pujara to have equal ratio for
language teachers of every language. Learned AGP Shri Raval
has placed on record the communication dated 11.2.2015 that
the discussion made during the course of the hearing may be
welcomed and accepted for fresh recruitment in the year 2015-
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Jitendra Kumar & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 11 December, 2007
16. The submission which has been made by learned AGP
that the scope of judicial review under Article 226 could be
limited and the court may not exercise the discretionary
jurisdiction under Article 226 with regard to the manner in
which the number of seats for the respective language teacher
should be made. It was emphasized that as it is a matter of
policy, normally the court would not decline to interfere and he
has strongly relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Jitendra Kumar and Ors. v. State of
Haryana and Anr. (supra) referring to the concept of judicial
review. However, there is no quarrel with the proposition
canvassed referring to the scope of judicial review that
normally while exercising discretionary jurisdiction under Article
226, the court would decline to interfere in a policy matter or
the actual implementation and the manner of implementation
Page 22 of 25
C/SCA/18101/2014 JUDGMENT
of the policy. However, at the same time, it is well accepted
that it is a matter of self-restraint rather than the jurisdiction.
As stated above, the subsequent bifurcation or the decision
after the advertisement by the government as an
administrative exigency would stare in the face which would
call for the scrutiny of such exercise or decision on the aspect
of equality and estoppel. All the candidates have a fair chance
to be considered for the post and if the policy / decision which
has been taken subsequently, negates any such opportunity,
would certainly a matter which could be examined. The
candidates have right to be considered fairly in the matter of
public employment. This in turn would imply the fairness in the
selection process and the decision making process. In the facts
of the case the decision for bifurcation of the post subject-wise
like 49% English and 51% for the remaining three languages
each is subsequently taken which may have a bearing on the
selected candidates who are selected and who have undergone
the same process of selection for the posts advertised as
language teacher. Therefore the selected candidates have to
be arranged in the order of their merit and such bifurcation
may lead to compromising or denying with the chance of the
appointment. The court would be justified in exercising such
discretion. In fact as stated above, the government has also
fairly accepted to have such bifurcation in equal proportion in
future or they can have more detailed home work before the
Page 23 of 25
C/SCA/18101/2014 JUDGMENT
advertisement so as to advertise number of posts for respective
teachers required for every respective language like more
number of posts for Hindi or Sanskrit depending upon the
requirement or the exigencies.
High Court Of Judicature For Rajasthan vs Veena Verma And Anr on 7 July, 2009
Learned AGP Shri Raval has also
referred to and relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in a judgment reported in (2009) 14 SCC 734 - High
Court of Judicature for Rajasthan v. Veena Verma and
anr. He has also referred to and relied upon the judgment
Page 10 of 25
C/SCA/18101/2014 JUDGMENT
reported in 2004 (2) GLR 1188 - Joshi Tushar Tansukhbhai
& Ors. v. State of Gujarat and also the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2003) 10 SCC 144 - State of
Orissa & Ors. v. Bhikari Charan Khuntia & Ors. Learned
AGP Shri Ronak Raval therefore submitted that the present
petition may not be entertained and the prayers as prayed may
not be granted.