Gujarat High Court
Bariya Kiritsinh Dalpatsinh vs State Of Gujarat on 17 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1076/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025
undefined
Reserved On : 09/07/2025
Pronounced On : 17/07/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1076 of 2008
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20742 of 2006
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 21842 of 2006
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No ========================================================== BARIYA KIRITSINH DALPATSINH & ORS.
Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
========================================================== Appearance:
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1076 OF 2008:
MR DEEP D VYAS(3869) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3 MR JEET JOTANGIA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2 RULE UNSERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 3 SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.20742 OF 2006: MR KB PUJARA for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR JEET JOTANGIA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1-2 MR HS MUNSHAW for the Respondent(s) No.3 MR PRANAV V SHAH, for the Respondent(s) No. 4 SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.21842 OF 2006: MS RAJESHWARI L MITTAL for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MS HARSHIT M KARATHIA for the Petitioner(s) No.1 MR JEET JOTANGIA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1-2 MR HS MUNSHAW for the Respondent(s) No.3-4 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT COMMON CAV JUDGMENT Page 1 of 10 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Thu Jul 17 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 17 22:28:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1076/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025 undefined
1. By way of these petitions, the petitioners are challenging the impugned orders passed by the respondents authorities, by which the petitioners are terminated, as well as the resolution dated 29.12.1980 passed by the State Government.
2. As common questions of fact and law are involved in these petitions, at the request of learned advocates for the parties, these petitions are disposed of by this common judgment.
3. The facts of Special Civil Application No.1076 of 2008 are taken for consideration:
3.1 The petitioners came to be appointed as Vidhyasahayak by the respondents after following due procedure of law on 11.2.2000; their services came to be terminated vide order dated 6.7.2000; the petitioners filed petition before this Court which was dismissed vide order dated 15.3.2001, against which Letters Patent Appeal was filed, which was dismissed vide order dated 12.7.2001 with a direction to the appellants therein to make appropriate representation; the representations were made, however, as no response was received, the petitioners filed another petition being Special Civil Application No.17842 of 2005, which was Page 2 of 10 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Thu Jul 17 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 17 22:28:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1076/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025 undefined disposed with a direction to the respondents to decide the representation vide order dated 22.2.2006; the respondents rejected the representations of the petitioners dated 11.5.2006 on the ground that the circular of the Central Government dated 4.6.1962 is cancelled by the Government of Gujarat vide circular dated 29.12.1980 and that the petitioners are possessing the requisite degree from other University i.e. from Maharashtra University and therefore the said degree is not recognized in the State of Gujarat and hence the order of termination of the petitioners were passed; being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed the Special Civil Application No.13531 of 2006 and allied matters, wherein the notice was issued and ad-interim relief to the effect not to terminate the services of the petitioners was passed; thereafter, the said petitions were dismissed on the ground that the present petitioners are not at par with other group of persons, whose petitions are pending before this Court, vide order dated 8.8.2007; the said order was carried in Letters Patent Appeal, wherein vide order dated 22.8.2007, directed the petitioners to make representation before the respondent authorities and also observed that the communication from the Central Government dated 4.6.1962 was not placed either before the respondent authorities or before the Single Judge and neither of them had any opportunity to examine the case of the petitioners from that angle, within a stipulated time frame to Page 3 of 10 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Thu Jul 17 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 17 22:28:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1076/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025 undefined file representation and decide the same; as the representations made by the petitioners were rejected by the respondents-authorities, these petitions are filed.
4. Heard learned advocates for the parties. 4.1 Learned advocates for the petitioners in each of the petition has submitted that the representations of the petitioners were rejected on the ground that circular of Central Government dated 4.6.1962 has been cancelled by the Government of Gujarat vide resolution dated 29.12.1980; that the petitioners have not suppressed any document or any facts which would affect their appointment; that the respondent authorities with their opened eyes scrutinized all the documents enclosed with the application and thereafter given the appointments to the petitioners on the post of Vidhya Sahayaks; the said circular dated 29.12.1980 on which the reliance is placed for passing the impugned orders, was very much in existence at the relevant time when the petitioners were appointed in the year 2000-2002 and therefore it cannot be believed that the respondents authorities were not aware of the circular dated 29.12.1980;
that the petitioners possess the qualification of CPEd degree from Amravati University is recognized by the National Council for Teachers Education and from time to time, the Page 4 of 10 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Thu Jul 17 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 17 22:28:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1076/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025 undefined said recognition is extended; that the state authorities cannot cancel the recognition which is granted by the Central Government without following due procedure of law; that even if the resolution dated 29.12.1980 passed by the Government of Gujarat superseding the circular of the Central Government dated 4.6.1962 is accepted, then also the said circular was in existence at the time of appointment of the petitioners as Vidhya Sahayaks and therefore when the respondents authorities have appointed the petitioners after scrutinizing the documents produced by the petitioners, then the termination based on the said circular at a later stage is illegal and arbitrary. They further submitted that the National Council for Teachers Education, 1993 came into force w.e.f.17.8.1995, the recruitment of Vidhyasahayaks was undertaken and that the Act cannot be applied retrospectively. They, therefore, submitted that these petitions are required to be allowed.
5. Per contra, learned advocate Mr.Munshaw appearing for the respondents authorities have submitted that the petitioners were appointed as Vidhya Sahayaks and they had the necessary qualification of SSC and CPEd from an institution outside the State of Gujarat i.e. from Amravati, State of Maharashtra; that the State Government has issued government resolution dated 29.12.1980 that the candidates Page 5 of 10 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Thu Jul 17 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 17 22:28:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1076/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025 undefined who have taken education in this institution will not be eligible for the services in the Gujarat State; and therefore, after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, passed the impugned orders of termination as the petitioners did not have requisite qualification from the recognized university. They submitted that the National Council for Teacher Education had written a letter dated 5.7.2000 to the DPEO Jilla Panchayat and informed that no institution of Maharashtra state has been granted recognition for CPED course by National Council for Teacher Education and that as per the circular dated 29.12.1980, it came to know that many candidates have been appointed as teachers who have certificate of this institution which is not recognized and hence there was mass termination. They, therefore, submitted that these petitions are required to be dismissed as there is no illegality or arbitrariness on behalf of the respondents authorities in passing the impugned orders of termination.
6. I have heard learned advocates for the parties and also perused the material produced on record.
7. The only point of controversy in these petitions is that whether the termination of the petitioners who were appointed on the posts of Vidhya Sahayaks in the State of Gujarat, on the basis of the certificate issued by an Page 6 of 10 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Thu Jul 17 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 17 22:28:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1076/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025 undefined institution of Amravati, State of Maharashtra, at a later stage, is legal or not?
8. From the record, it transpires that a circular dated 4.6.1962 was issued by the Government of India recognizing that the qualification is applicable to all the state government and union territories; thereafter, vide resolution dated 29.12.1980 passed by the Government of Gujarat cancelling the circular of Central Government dated 4.6.1962, the degree from other university is not recognized by the State of Gujarat. Therefore, the petitioners who are holding the diploma course of CPEd from State of Maharashtra are not entitled to be appointed as Vidhyasahayaks in the State of Gujarat. The petitioners have obtained the requisite qualification from the said University in the year 1991-92 i.e. much after the circular dated 29.12.1980 was issued by the Government of Gujarat, therefore, the petitioners, though qualified, cannot be said to be eligible for the said post in the State of Gujarat.
9. The case of petitioners cannot be said at par with the petitioner of the case relied on by learned advocate for the petitioner being Special Civil Application No.20020 of 2006, which was filed by a person who also obtained certificate from the same institution of Amravati, State of Page 7 of 10 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Thu Jul 17 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 17 22:28:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1076/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025 undefined Maharashtra, for the reason that the petitioner therein took admission in CPEd in the said University in July, 1980 and completed the said course in April, 1981 and the said circular was issued on 29.12.1980 that the said institution has been derecognized by the State Government so they should not admit any student from Gujarat State in the said course conducted by the said institute of Amravati, Maharashtra and therefore the coordinate Bench allowed the petition by observing that when the petitioner obtained admission, at that time, said course was not derecognized by the State of Gujarat. The said order was confirmed by the Division Bench by observing that the respondent-petitioner had acquired admission at a time when the course from the said institute was duly recognized and therefore the same would continue to be valid in spite of its derecognition on a subsequent date. Had the admission been acquired by the respondent-original petitioner after the derecognition of the course the same should be held to be ineligible. Further, the petitioner therein had put in 22 years of service and the respondent authority concerned has taken the decision to terminate the petitioner after 22 years of service and the delay was not explained and therefore also the relief was granted in favour of the petitioner. In the case on hand, the petitioners completed their course in the year 1991-92, the recruitment was undertaken in the year 1998, the petitioners Page 8 of 10 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Thu Jul 17 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 17 22:28:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1076/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025 undefined were recruited in the year 2000 and within no time, they were terminated on the ground that the qualification of the petitioners is not recognized by the State of Gujarat immediately and not after much delay. This means that the admission is acquired by the petitioners after the derecognition of the course and therefore the same should be held ineligible. Therefore, when the petitioners were given appointment on the basis of a certificate not recognized by the State of Gujarat, the respondents authorities were justified in taking the action of termination of the petitioners.
10. Further, though the National Council for Teachers Education, 1993 came into force w.e.f. 17.8.1995 and it mandates that the qualification in teacher education obtained in an unrecognized institution after coming into force of the said Act shall not be treated as a valid qualification for the purpose of employment under the State and that it cannot be applied retrospectively, then also, the fact remains that the circular dated 29.12.1980 was in existence on the date when the petitioners completed their course from the said institution i.e. in the year 1991-92 and therefore the course completed by the petitioners cannot be said to be recognized for appointing them on the posts in question. Therefore also, the respondent authorities were justified in taking the action of termination of the petitioners.
11. In view of the above, these petitions are required Page 9 of 10 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Thu Jul 17 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 17 22:28:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1076/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025 undefined to be dismissed. Accordingly, dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated.
12. Though these petitions are dismissed for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, it is required to send a word of caution to the respondents authorities before parting to be more careful in scrutinizing the documents at the time of giving appointment to the candidates, so that this kind of blunder may not be committed in future, as is done in this case, where because of the wrong scrutiny of the documents by the respondents authorities, the petitioners were given hope of livelihood by giving appointment and the same had been taken away at a later stage on coming to know that the qualification obtained by the petitioners were not recognized. It is expected that the respondents authorities will be more careful in future.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J) SRILATHA After pronouncement of the judgment, learned advocate Mr.Pujara for the petitioners has prayed for staying this order.
Request is accepted. This order is stayed for a period of two weeks.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J) SRILATHA Page 10 of 10 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Thu Jul 17 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 17 22:28:19 IST 2025