Gujarat High Court
Ravesinh Oghadbhai Barad vs State Of Gujarat on 15 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11009/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11009 of 2010
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J. SHELAT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==========================================================
RAVESINH OGHADBHAI BARAD
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR K P CHAMPANERI for MR PS CHAMPANERI(214) for the Petitioner(s)
No. 1
MS FORUM SHAH, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,5
MR VIRAL K SHAH(5210) for the Respondent(s) No. 6
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J. SHELAT
Date : 15/04/2026
JUDGMENT
1. Heard Mr. K. P. Champaneri, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. P. S. Champaneri, learned Advocate for the petitioner, Ms. Forum Shah, learned AGP for the respondent No.1-State and Mr. Viral K. Shah, learned Advocate for respondent No.6.
Page 1 of 18 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Wed Apr 15 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 16 21:20:42 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11009/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026 undefined
2. The present writ petition is filed under Articles 14, 19 and 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:
"A That this Hon'ble Court will be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the appointment of respondent no.6 for the post 'Teacher' in respondent no.2 school.
B That this Hon'ble Court will be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or directions in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions directing Respondent No.2 to give appointment to the petitioner at place of Respondent No.6. C That this Hon'ble Court will be pleased to quash and set aside order dated 22/07/2010 passed by The Gujarat Higher Secondary Educational Tribunal in Application No: 53/2009. D That this Hon'ble Court will be pleased to pass such other and further orders as the nature and circumstances of the case may arise."
3. SHORT FACTS:
3.1. The petitioner, along with respondent No. 6, had applied for the post of Shikshan Sahayak-Hindi, in pursuance to advertisement dated 08.06.2008 issued by the respondent-
authority in a daily newspaper, i.e., Nutan Saurashtra Newspaper. It is not in dispute that the petitioner, as well as Page 2 of 18 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Wed Apr 15 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 16 21:20:42 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11009/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026 undefined respondent No. 6, possess the requisite educational qualifications, i.e., M.A. (Hindi) and B.P.Ed. Both appeared for the interview conducted by a five-member committee constituted by the Respondent No.4 - District Education Officer. As per the final result, respondent No. 6 secured 24.31 marks whereas the petitioner secured 23.77 marks. Accordingly, respondent No. 6 was given the appointment, which is challenged by way of this petition. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONER:
4. Mr. Champaneri, learned Advocate for the petitioner, has vehemently made the following submissions:
4.1. The respondent No. 6 was wrongly given 2.30 marks under the head of work experience by the respondent-authority, which is contrary to Appendix-2 prepared by the Gujarat Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Board (hereinafter referred to as "the Board") vide its letter dated 09.10.2003. 4.2. The respondent has committed a serious error in calculating the marks for work experience of respondent No. 6, contrary to the aforesaid Appendix-2, which resulted in denial of appointment to the petitioner as a teacher. Page 3 of 18 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Wed Apr 15 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 16 21:20:42 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11009/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026 undefined 4.3. It is undisputed fact that, as per the aforesaid Appendix-2, one mark will be calculated as per the Board result of the school of the particular subject, i.e., Hindi in question. It is also undisputed fact that for the years 2007 and 2008, there was no Board result available so far as Hindi subject of the school, wherein, respondent No. 6 imparted education as a teacher. In this set of circumstances, considering the overall school result of the Board examination for calculating the marks towards Experience of respondent No. 6 for said years, is contrary to the aforesaid Appendix-2.
4.4. The respondent authority is incorrect in its submission that it has awarded appropriate marks under head of work experience to respondent No. 6 by placing reliance upon minutes of the meeting dated 24.02.2005 of the Board. The minutes of the aforesaid meeting would only indicate that in a case where there is no class of Standard 10 available, in such circumstances, for the concerned year, the overall Board result can be considered for calculating the marks. 4.5. Since the concerned school wherein respondent No. 6 was serving as a teacher had a 10th Standard class, there was no Page 4 of 18 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Wed Apr 15 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 16 21:20:42 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11009/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026 undefined reason for calculating the marks under head of experience as per the Board examination of the said years. Even otherwise, the marks calculated by the respondent, i.e., 2.30, is not on the basis of the overall result of the Board for the years 2007 and 2008.
4.6. The petitioner is otherwise more meritorious in study than respondent No. 6 and if the work experience marks of respondent No. 6 for the years 2007 and 2008 would not be considered, then the petitioner had secured more marks than respondent No. 6.
4.7. Making the above submissions, Mr. Champaneri, learned Advocate, would request this Court to allow the present writ petition.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS:
5. Per contra, Ms. Forum Shah, learned AGP for respondent-
State as well as Mr. Viral Shah, learned Advocate for respondent No. 6, respectively, have opposed this petition by making the following submissions:
5.1. There is no merit in the claim of the petitioner as no error was Page 5 of 18 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Wed Apr 15 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 16 21:20:42 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11009/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026 undefined committed by the respondent - authority in calculating the marks for the experience of respondent No. 6. 5.2. The respondent No. 6 is also equally qualified like the petitioner and as such, is having requisite qualification and work experience to be appointed as a Hindi teacher. 5.3. The school in which respondent No. 6 was serving prior to appointment, no student studying in the 10th standard opted for Hindi subject in year 2007 & 2008, whereby there was no Board result of the school in Hindi subject available for the years 2007 and 2008 and in this circumstances, the overall school's result in the Board examination was considered while calculating marks for the work experience. 5.4. The respondent No. 6 was also possessing the degree in physical education and it cannot be said that the school result for the years 2007 and 2008 could not have been taken into account by the respondent as in subject of the physical education, the school result was 100%. 5.5. It is undisputed that the petitioner did not possess any requisite work experience, as he was not serving as a teacher in any school at the time of applying for the post in question. Page 6 of 18 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Wed Apr 15 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 16 21:20:42 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11009/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026 undefined Whereas, respondent No. 6 possessed the requisite work experience as a teacher, and he was found to be more meritorious than the petitioner, as he secured higher marks than the petitioner, accordingly, he was given appointment. 5.6. The respondents have filed affidavits clarifying the counting of marks in accordance with law and also it is very much clear from the minutes of meeting dated 24.02.2005 of the Board that, in a case where no class of Standard 10 is available in the school, in that situation, the overall Board result of that particular year is to be considered for calculating experience marks. Accordingly, the respondents have not committed any error in calculating the experience marks of respondent No. 6. 5.7. The respondent No. 6 was appointed in the year 2009 and such appointment may not be disturbed by this Court after these many years, especially when the petitioner is not more meritorious than respondent No. 6.
5.8. Making the above submissions, the learned Advocates would request this Court to reject the present writ petition.
6. No other and further submissions are being made. Page 7 of 18 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Wed Apr 15 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 16 21:20:42 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11009/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026 undefined ANALYSIS:
7. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and upon perusal of their pleadings and documents, the following would emerge:
7.1. Pursuance to the advertisement dated 08.06.2008 published by the respondent - authority in daily newspaper, namely, Nutan Saurashtra Newspaper, for the post of Shikshan Sahayak in a higher secondary school, the petitioner as well as respondent No. 6, both had applied for the post of Shikshan Sahayak-
Hindi. Both possessed the requisite educational qualifications to apply for the said post. The interviews of the petitioner as well as respondent No. 6 and others, were conducted by the committee constituted by respondent No.4 - DEO. The said committee constituted of five members has awarded marks as per the aforesaid Appendix-2 issued by the Board. The particulars of marks given to the petitioner as well as respondent No. 6, read thus:
Particulars Petitioner Respondent No.6 Name Ravesinh Rathod Oghadbhai Barad Dineshkumar Govindbhai Page 8 of 18 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Wed Apr 15 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 16 21:20:42 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11009/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026 undefined Qualification marks B.A. - 5.20 B.A. - 5.85 M.A. - 7.68 M.A. - 7.46 B.ed - 10.88 B.ed - 9.20 Experience marks - 2.30 Total 23.77 24.31 7.2. Since respondent No. 6 secured higher marks than the petitioner, he was appointed by the respondent - authority.
Accordingly, since year 2009, the respondent No. 6 is serving as a teacher in the respondent - school.
7.3. It is undisputed fact that the petitioner did not possess any requisite work experience at the time of applying for the post in question and accordingly, no experience marks calculated in his case.
8. The main thrust of the argument of the petitioner is that 2.30 marks for experience calculated in a case of respondent No. 6 is contrary to the aforesaid Appendix-2 issued by the Board. The bifurcation of 2.30 marks towards experience is explained by respondent No. 4 in its affidavit-in-reply dated 29.01.2025. The relevant part of the aforesaid affidavit requires to be reproduced, which reads thus:
Page 9 of 18 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Wed Apr 15 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 16 21:20:42 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11009/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026 undefined "6. It is submitted that for the year 2006 experience taken into consideration of the Respondent No. 6, the result of the school is to be taken into the result of consideration. Therefore, the result of the school 60.50% in year 2006 had 79.16% result, with students having subject Hindi as main subject. Therefore, the marks are calculated as 0.8 for Respondent No. 6 for 03.12.2008.
7. It is submitted that when there is no Hindi as a main subject then the result of the overall school is to be considered. Therefore, in 2007 and 2008 there was no student with subject Hindi in 10th standard, the result of school was taken into consideration. In case, the result of school was considered. The said is reflected in the certificate issued by last school of the Respondent No. 6 page 36 of the petition. The petitioner having not worked anywhere before applying to the post in the present petition, the marks allocated to the respondent no. 6 would be but natural be granted based upon the experience in view of the resolution 23.01.2009.
8. In lights and circumstances of the case, the allocation of marks to the respondent no. 6 cannot be disputed by the petitioner as the petitioner is not having experience and therefore, no marks are allocated to petitioner for the experience and hence, the petitioner having Page 10 of 18 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Wed Apr 15 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 16 21:20:42 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11009/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026 undefined knowledge of the fact absent recruitment criteria cannot claim parity nor priority over respondent no. 6 hence, the petition does not deserve any interference." 8.1. Likewise, respondent No. 6, in his further affidavit-in-reply dated 13.02.2026, also explained the marking system. The relevant portion of the aforesaid reply reads thus:
"a. I say and submit that the merit marking for experience is to be given as per Page 100 schedule. The said schedule provides that 1 mark is to be given for experience at a school per year based upon the percentage result of the school.
b. The explanation of allocation of marks for teaching experience to the answering respondent is provided at page 102. As per Page 109, the result of the last school for the years 2006-2008, has been provided. As per page 102, for the year 2006 the result of Hindi Subject of the School has been taken into consideration which was 79.16% (@Page 109). Thus for 2006 the marks available to answering respondent would be 0.79~0.8 (79.16/100). For year 2007, in the school where the answering respondent last served, no student had taken hindi subject and therefore overall result of the said school i.e 78.12% (@ Page 109) was taken for the purpose of allocating experience marking which came to 0.78 - 0.8 (78.12/100). For year 2008 also, in the school where the answering respondent last served, no student had taken hindi subject and therefore overall result of the said Page 11 of 18 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Wed Apr 15 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 16 21:20:42 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11009/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026 undefined school i.e. 70.00% (@ Page 109) was taken for the purpose of allocating experience marking which came to 0.7 (70.00/100). Thus, the total allocation of marks for experience to the answering respondent for 2006-2008 was 2.3 (0.8+0.8+0.7).
c. It is to be submitted that the answering respondent taught both Hindi and Health and physical education to at the school where he last served. That is how the experience marking have been given by the school where the answering respondent last served in terms of Hindi and Physical Education. (@Page 109) d. It is submitted that it was only in 2006 that subject Hindi was taken by students at the school where the answering respondent last served therefore the experience marks taken into consideration for 2006 is qua result of the school in Hindi subject. (@ Page 109) e. It is submitted that since Hindi is an optional secondary subject, the students where the answering respondent last served did not take Hindi as option for years 2007 and 2008. Hence for the purposes of experience marking for the years 2007 and 2008 the over all result of the school has been taken into consideration for both these years. (@Page 109) f. It may be noted that the result for physical education at the school where the petitioner last served was 100% (@Page 109). Therefore, as such the petitioner ought to have been given 3 marks for each year i.e. 1 mark for year 2006, 1 mark for year 2007 and 1 mark for year 2008 as per the marking system provided in the schedule (@Page Page 12 of 18 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Wed Apr 15 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 16 21:20:42 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11009/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026 undefined
100). Thus, as such the answering respondent was entitled to 3 marks but the same has been granted 2.3 marks. The answering respondent however does not join issue with respect to the same.
In sum and substance, the allocation of marks for experience granted to the petitioner being in accordance of the policy of the state government (@ Page 100) as affirmed by the concerned District Education Officer, Gir Somnath (@Page 102), it cannot be said that the same suffers from any discrepancy."
9. Thus, the respondent authority appears to have considered experience marks counting the result of the Board examination of Hindi subject for the year 2006 of the school concerned, as well as the school's result of the Board examination for the years 2007 and 2008. It is undisputed that for the year 2007 & 2008, no student opted for Hindi subject in the 10th standard of the school wherein the petitioner was serving. To better understand the aforesaid aspect, the Board result of the subject Hindi of the school concerned, as well as the overall Board result of the school for the years 2006 to 2008 needs to be referred. It would be apt to refer to the certificate issued by Sardar Patel High School, Junagadh, wherein respondent No. 6 was serving prior to the appointment, which is made available Page 13 of 18 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Wed Apr 15 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 16 21:20:42 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11009/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026 undefined and submitted by respondent No. 4 with its aforesaid affidavit dated 29.01.2025 (Page-109). The results of respective years can be summarized thus:
Last Three Years' Board Result Examination Board Result School Subject Result Year Result Hindi Physical March-2006 60.50 48.17% 79.16% 100% March-2007 90.23 78.12% NIL 100% March-2008 90.51 70.00% NIL 100%
10. The Appendix-2 issued by the Board for calculating the marks while selecting the teacher would indicate that, apart from the marks towards educational qualification, five marks towards work experience is also to be considered. It is true that, so far as the selection of a teacher of Standard 10 is concerned; while considering work experience and to calculate marks for it, one mark is to be calculated as per the percentage of the result of the school of the subject for which the teacher is to be appointed. Meaning thereby, if there is a selection of a teacher for Hindi subject like case on hand, the Board result of the school of that subject, i.e., Hindi, of Standard 10 requires to be Page 14 of 18 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Wed Apr 15 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 16 21:20:42 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11009/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026 undefined considered and accordingly marks to be calculated. So far as the year 2006 is concerned, the result of the school for subject Hindi was available, i.e., 79.16% and accordingly, 0.8 marks calculated for that year. Whereas, for the years 2007 and 2008, as stated hereinabove, none of the student of the school concerned opted for Hindi subject in Standard 10, no result of Hindi subject was available. Thus, the committee constituted by the respondent No.4 considered the overall Board results of the school for the years 2007 and 2008 while calculating experience marks, i.e., 78.12% - 0.8 marks and 70% - 0.7 marks, respectively. Consequently, the total experience marks were calculated as 2.30 (0.8 + 0.8 + 0.7).
11. The respondents have placed reliance upon the minutes of the meeting dated 24.02.2005 of the Board, wherein it was decided that, in a case where there is no class of Standard 10 available in particular year in the school, for such year, taking into account the Board result, experience marks may be considered. As per the above referred certificate issued by the school concerned, it appears that for the years 2007 and 2008, the result of the Board of Hindi subject was 90.23% and 90.51%, respectively, which is in fact, higher than overall Board result Page 15 of 18 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Wed Apr 15 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 16 21:20:42 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11009/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026 undefined of the school for such period.
11.1. Mr. Champaneri, learned Advocate for the petitioner, would submit that the said minutes of the meeting is not applicable, inasmuch as the class of Standard 10 was very much available in the aforesaid school for the years 2007 and 2008 and as such, the result of the Board cannot be considered. Yet, no class of Hindi for Standard 10 was available for the year 2007 and 2008.
12. I have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned Advocates and, upon its overall appreciation and considering the aforesaid facts, reach to the conclusion that there is no illegality committed by the committee constituted by the respondent. As such, no fault can be found with the committee when it has calculated 2.3 marks for work experience of respondent No. 6. Undoubtedly respondent No. 6 possessed the work experience, unlike the petitioner, who did not possess it. In absence of any Hindi student available in Standard 10 for the years 2007 and 2008 in the school where respondent No. 6 was serving prior to appointment, in such circumstances, if the committee Page 16 of 18 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Wed Apr 15 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 16 21:20:42 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11009/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026 undefined considered overall Board results of the school for the said years, such decision of the committee cannot be either illegal or arbitrary. From the bare perusal of the aforesaid Appendix-2 and minutes of the meeting of the Board, it can be gainsaid that committee has committed gross illegality while calculating work experience marks of respondent No.6. It is fortuitous circumstance that in year 2007 & 2008, no student opted Hindi subject in 10th Standard than naturally there would not have any class of Hindi and in such circumstances, if the overall Board result of the school considered by the committee while calculating the work experience marks, there is nothing fundamentally wrong committed by the committee. Such decision of the committee by no stretch can be considered as arbitrary. Moreover, respondent No. 6 was also additionally possessing degree in physical education, and in that subject the result of the school concerned was 100% in all the years from 2006 to 2008.
13. Thus, upon overall appreciation of the facts and taking into account the work experience of respondent No. 6, as well as bare reading of Appendix-2 and the minutes of the meeting dated 24.02.2005 of the Board, I am of the considered view that Page 17 of 18 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Wed Apr 15 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 16 21:20:42 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11009/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/04/2026 undefined there is no illegality committed by the respondent - authority while giving an appointment to respondent No. 6, who secured higher marks than the petitioner. Furthermore, it is also not desirable to disturb the appointment of respondent No. 6 being teacher after these many years by taking very hyper-technical view, as was submitted by learned advocate of petitioner. According to me, no interference is required of this Court and I would not like to exercise my discretionary power to disturb the appointment of the respondent No.6.
CONCLUSION:
14. In view of the foregoing discussions, reasons and conclusion, the present petition lacks merit, requires to be dismissed, which is hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged. There shall be no order as to costs.
(MAULIK J. SHELAT, J) NILESH Page 18 of 18 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Wed Apr 15 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 16 21:20:42 IST 2026