Gujarat High Court
Patel Harshadkumar Jasvantlal vs State Of Gujarat on 25 November, 2025
Author: Nirzar S. Desai
Bench: Nirzar S. Desai
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20639/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.20639 of 2023
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR DIRECTION) NO.1 of 2025
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.20639 of 2023
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE :
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
=========================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
YES
=========================================
PATEL HARSHADKUMAR JASVANTLAL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
=========================================
Appearance :
MR NV GANDHI for the Petitioner.
MR DHRUTI PANDYA, AGP for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 & 5.
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent No.4.
=========================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
Date : 25/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for multifold prayers. However, at the outset, learned advocate Mr. N. V. Gandhi submitted before the Court that he presses only prayer 13A which was permitted to be amended vide order dated 7.10.2025. However, while carrying out the amendment, it is wrongly stated to have been carried out as per the Court's order dated 6.11.2025. The prayer reads as under :-
Page 1 of 9 Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:50:12 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/20639/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined "YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order and/or direction may be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned decision approved on dtd. 23.09.2025 communicated vide letter dtd. 23.09.2025 (Annex.-J (Colly.)) and be further pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ, order or direction and be pleased to direct the respondents to appoint petitioner in the Cadre of Gujarat Educational Service, Class - II (Administrative Branch) as per recommendation given by the Resp. No.4 Commission (Annex.-E).
(B) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to direct the Respondents to reserve one Post in the Cadre of Gujarat Educational Service, Class - II (Administrative Branch) pursuant to the advertisement No.125/2019-2020 (Annex. B), during the pendency and final disposal of this petition;"
Civil Application No.1 of 2025 is filed seeking a direction to the respondents to reconsider their decision communicated vide letter dated 29.8.2024 and to reserve one post in the cadre of Gujarat Education Service, Class - II (Administrative Branch) pursuant to the advertisement.
2. The petition contains very bulky record. However, the only issue involved in the petition is whether though the petitioner's name figured in the waiting list at Serial No.8 for the post of Gujarat Educational Service, Class - II (Administrative Page 2 of 9 Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:50:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/20639/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined Branch) published by GPSC and despite the fact that the waiting list was operated and persons whose names were shown below the petitioner i.e. Serial No.9 on the said post, the petitioner was denied appointment and, therefore, the present petition is preferred with the prayer which is incorporated in the foregoing paragraph.
3. With the consent of parties, the matter was taken up finally. Hence, Rule. Ms. Dhruti Pandya, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of respondent Nos.1 to 3 & 5. Despite service of notice, respondent No.4 - GPSC has chosen not to appear.
4. The case of the petitioner as canvassed by learned advocate Mr. Gandhi is that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Teacher with Govt. Primary School and at present, he is serving on the post of Head Teacher with Indira Faliya Varg Primary School situated at Indiranagari of Village Timba, Tal. Godhra, Dist. Panchmahal under the District Panchayat, Panchmahal at Godhra.
5. The petitioner is possessing qualification of B.A, B.Ed., M.A, M.Ed., Head Teacher Aptitude Test (H-TAT). Pursuant to an advertisement issued by Gujarat Public Service Commission to fill up 141 posts of Gujarat Educational Service, Class - II (Administrative Branch) in the year 2019, the petitioner applied for the same and cleared the examination as well as oral interview and found himself at Serial No.8 in the waiting list. Though the select list was operated and waiting list was also operated upto Serial No.7 and thereafter from Serial No.9 onwards, the petitioner was Page 3 of 9 Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:50:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/20639/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined denied appointment and as the respondents operated the waiting list by recommending total 30 number of candidates from various categories from the waiting list, the petitioner was aggrieved. It is stated in the petition that the petitioner was called on 4.12.2023 by the respondent No.3 for the purpose of verification of certificates and other documents and according to the petitioner, on a Certificate issued on 21.5.2021 issued by District Primary Education Officer, District Education Committee, Panchmahals @ Godhra, the respondent No.2 put up certain remarks on his handwriting on the said Certificate dated 21.5.2021 and on that basis, the petitioner's case was not considered for appointment and that is how the petition is preferred.
6. According to learned advocate Mr. N. V. Gandhi, the petitioner is having educational qualification of M.A, M.Ed. Wherein the degree of B.Ed was cleared as back as in the year 2008 and thereafter from 2009, the petitioner is serving as In- charge Head Teacher for almost 10 years and, therefore, the petitioner can said to have met with the educational and experience criteria prescribed under the advertisement. Despite that, the petitioner's appointment was denied on the ground that the petitioner lacks the experience.
7. Ms. Dhruti Pandya, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 5 drew attention of this Court initially to the affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent No.2 - Deputy Director, Office of Commissioner of Mid-day Meal Scheme and Schools. In the said affidavit, it is stated that the petitioner's candidature was rejected vide communication dated 29.8.2024 which was during the pendency of the petition by way of Page 4 of 9 Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:50:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/20639/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined four line order that as the petitioner is not meeting with the relevant experience criteria, he cannot be appointed on the post in question.
8. However, the aforesaid communication does not speak anything about which experience criteria is not fulfilled by the petitioner and how the same cannot be said to have been fulfilled by the petitioner. In paragraph 4.3 of the affidavit-in-reply, it is stated as under :-
"4.3 It is pertinent to mention that the documents submitted by the petitioner at the time of verification, more particularly, the certificate dated 21.5.2021 issued by the DPEO seems to have been interpolated and produced before this Hon'ble Court. The said aspect gets fortified by the fact that an NOC dated 21.05.2021 (same date) issued by the very authority mentions his post as Primary Teacher (Prathmik Shikshak) and hence, this aspect creates a cloud on the assertion of the petitioner that he had rendered service on the post of Head Teacher. A copy of the two certificates is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure RIII. It is submitted that when the two certificates are seen in juxtaposition with certificate produced at Pg. 59, it can be discerned that the Petitioner has interpolated on the said certificate to mislead this Hon'ble Court."
9. By the above averment, the author of the affidavit-in- reply has alleged that the petitioner has tried to mislead this Court.
Page 5 of 9 Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:50:12 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/20639/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined In the affidavit-in-reply, it is also alleged that the petitioner has not placed on record any document to show that at any point of time, the petitioner was appointed or promoted or was in charge on the post of Head Teacher. Therefore, the experience canvassed by the petitioner on the basis of the document submitted by the petitioner cannot be accepted.
10. When learned AGP Ms. Pandya was confronted about the aspect of interpolation that whether the same can be attributed to the petitioner and that the petitioner is alleging the same to have been done by the authority and the petitioner did not produce any interpolated document before the authority at the time of verification of documents and such allegations can be levelled against the petitioner and the concerned author of the affidavit-in- reply was asked to remain present at 14.30 today before the Court and accordingly, the author of the affidavit remained present at 14.30 before the Court and under instructions from him, learned AGP Ms. Pandya submitted that it is true that there is no case of interpolation of any documents before the State authorities and the contention about interpolation of documents by the petitioner and the allegation against the petitioner about attempt of misleading the Court are baseless and misplaced.
11. Further, learned AGP Ms. Pandya while making submissions though could not point out anything from the affidavit- in-reply, ultimately pointed out from the advertisement issued by GPSC and more particularly, Clause 2 related to Educational Qualification and Experience and Sub-Clause (3) thereof which reads as under :-
Page 6 of 9 Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:50:12 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/20639/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined "(3) have at least five years combined or separate experience in teaching and/or administration in the field of education in the Government or Local bodies or University or private or public sector self finance educational organisation or educational institution on the post which can be considered equivalent to the post of Assistant Teacher, Class 3 in the Government Higher Secondary School or Assistant Teacher, Class 3 in the Government Secondary School or Kelavani Nirikshak or Extention Officer (Education) or Additional District Education Inspector or Head Teacher in Primary Education Service after obtaining the degree in teaching or education as prescribed under sub-clause (ii) of clause (b) of Rule 3."
12. On the basis of the same, learned AGP Ms. Pandya submitted that a person must possess the experience as provided under the advertisement. Ms. Pandya thereafter took this Court to the General Instructions which is part of advertisement and Clause 6 of the same is in relation to experience which provides that experience acquired by the candidate as a Part timer, daily wager, by way of apprentice, as a trainee, for doing honorary work and invitee faculty or as In-charge shall not be counted as a valid experience against the post in question. Ms. Pandya thereafter drew the attention of this Court to the statement given by the petitioner himself before the respondent authority (produced at page 21 in Civil Application No.1 of 2025) that right from 11.7.2009, petitioner is holding the charge as Head Teacher and that the petitioner was never appointed or promoted to the post of Page 7 of 9 Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:50:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/20639/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined Head Teacher by virtue of all throughout for all these years and the petitioner is performing his duties as In-charge Head Teacher and hence, as per Clause 6 of the General Instructions, such experience cannot be termed as valid experience and, therefore, the petitioner was rightly denied the appointment to the post in question.
13. Learned AGP Ms. Pandya submitted that the petitioner's own admission that he was not holding the regular post, but was enjoying the post as In-charge would be self explanatory and hence, the petitioner's experience cannot be termed as experience in consonance with the requirement provided by way of advertisement and, therefore, the petitioner's candidature has rightly been rejected and the respondent authority has acted in right manner by not giving appointment to the petitioner on the post in question. She, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the petition.
14. I have heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the record. The documents on record are self-explanatory. Even learned advocate Mr. N. V. Gandhi appearing for the petitioner also despite best efforts could not point out a single document whereby the petitioner was ever appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher, Educational Inspector or any other equivalent post which can be termed as equivalent to the post of Head Teacher. Mr. Gandhi was fair enough in admitting the fact that the petitioner though has worked as Assistant Teacher, but that was in a Primary School, whereas the requirement as per the advertisement to count the experience for being appointed would be experience as Assistant Teacher Class 3 in any Government Secondary School, which admittedly the Page 8 of 9 Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:50:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/20639/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined petitioner does not possess. Further, it is not in dispute that the petitioner al-throughout was holding the post of Head Teacher as In-charge Head Teacher. Therefore, in absence of there being any valid experience as per the requirement of advertisement and more particularly, as prescribed in General Instructions as to which sort of experience can be counted as valid experience, action of the respondents cannot be termed as illegal of not appointing the petitioner on the post in question. Accordingly, the petition is required to be dismissed as the petitioner could not satisfy the Court on joint reading of the advertisement in respect of educational and experience criteria and General Instructions in relation to experience, as the petitioner is not meeting with the required criteria of not holding the regular post, but was working as In-charge Head Teacher which cannot be termed as valid qualification or experience.
15. Accordingly, the petition is required to be dismissed and the same is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.
16. In view of dismissal of the petition, connected application also stands dismissed.
(NIRZAR S. DESAI,J) SAVARIYA Page 9 of 9 Uploaded by R.N. SAVARIYA(HC00179) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:50:12 IST 2025