[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
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.
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
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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
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:
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
