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
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.20742 OF 2006:
MR JEET JOTANGIA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1-2
MR HS MUNSHAW for the Respondent(s) No.3
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
