[Cites 15, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Bhojani Anand Prabhudas vs State Of Gujarat on 27 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7303/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7303 of 2012
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==========================================================
BHOJANI ANAND PRABHUDAS & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR KB PUJARA(680) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MS. NIDHI VYAS, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 27/01/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard Mr. K.B. Pujara, learned advocate for the
petitioners and Ms. Nidhi Vyas, learned AGP for the
respondent - State, at length.
2. The present writ petition is filed under Article 226
of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking following
reliefs:
"(a) to admit this petition and to allow the same;
(b) to hold and declare that Rule 4(d) of Head Teacher
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7303/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026
undefined
Class-III in the subordinate service of the Directorate of
Primary Education or respective District or Municipal
Primary Education Committee Recruitment Rules, 2012
(Annexure-B) read with other relevant rules is bad in law
and arbitrary and does not require five years experience
after acquiring degree of B.Ed. and direct the respondents to
accept and consider petitioners' eligible for the post of Head
Teacher;
(c) During the pendency and/or final disposal of this petition
be pleased to direct the respondents to accept the forms of
the petitioners who are qualified in accordance with law and
applicable rules;
(d) During the pendency and/or final disposal of this petition
be pleased to direct the respondents to extend the date of
Online registration i.e. 31-5-2012.
(e) During the pendency and/or final disposal of this petition
be pleased, to stay the recruitment of Head Teacher by direct
recruitment/selection pursuant to the Advertisement issued by
the respondent dtd. 22-3-2012 as per Annexure-B;
(f) to grant any other appropriate and just relief/;s
7(g) To quash and set aside the advertisement dated 22-3-
2012 and all the consequential actions pursuant thereto as
being contrary to and inconsistent with the letter and spirit of
the Judgment and Order dtd. 8-5-2012 rendered by this
Hon'ble Court in SCA No. 3592 of 2012 and allied matters
(Coram: K.M.Thaker, J) as per Annexure-C;
7(h) To direct the Respondents to undertake the recruitment
of Head Teachers for Lower Primary Schools (Std. 1 to 5)
and for Upper Primary Schools (Std. 6 to 8) after laying
down the minimum qualifications for them and after
separately earmarking the number of Post for both the said
categories;
7(i) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition be
pleased to restrain the respondents and their agents and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7303/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026
undefined
servants from taking any actions in furtherance of the
Advertisement dtd. 22-3-2012 at ANNEXURE: B"
BRIEF FACTS:
3. Brief facts of the case as stated in the memo of
the petition are as under:
3.1 It appears that the petitioners have appeared in the
Head Teacher Aptitude Test which was conducted on
25.02.2012 and the result of the same was declared on
27.02.2012 and all the petitioners have successfully
cleared their HTAT. The respondent No.2 issued
Advertisement dated 22.03.2012 giving scheduled details
and requirements as per resolution dated 18-1-2012 for
online registration for appointment for the post of Head
Teacher, Class III as per the merit-list on or before
31.03.2012. It is further stated that a petition being
Special Civil Application No. 3960 of 2012 was filed by
some of the candidates before this Hon'ble Court
challenging the aforesaid advertisement dated 22.03.2012,
wherein the order/judgment was passed on 08.05.2012
observing that "having regard to the facts of the case,
the impugned decision and action of the authority of
restricting the option to only one document / detail,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7303/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026
undefined
cannot be sustained and has to be set aside. Hence, the
said Resolution and the condition imposed by Resolution
dated 29.2.2012 are declared arbitrary, unjust,
unreasonable and irrational and are hereby set aside. It
is, however, clarified that the respondent authority shall,
after considering all relevant factors and aspects, take
appropriate decision about the material or the documents
which will be considered as sufficient and satisfactory
proof for determining the fulfillment of condition as to
requisite experience and issue fresh appropriate
instructions for intimation and information to the
candidates. However, until such instructions are issued
and reasonable time is allowed to the teachers to make
application in light of such revised instructions, any final
decision and action as to the applications, received
earlier shall not be taken and the posts shall not be
filled-up. It is further clarified that the Court has not
disapproved the decision of considering the details of
salary account as evidence about fulfillment of the
eligibility criteria viz. experience but what is disapproved
is the decision to treat the said details as the only and
solitary proof acceptable for ascertaining the compliance
as to requisite qualification."
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7303/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026
undefined
3.2 It appears that the respondent No. 1 passed the
Resolution dated 16.05.2012 after considering the
judgment dated 08.05.2012 passed by this Hon'ble Court.
The respondent No. 2 issued Advertisement on 18.05.2012
after considering the said Resolution dated 16.05.2012,
wherein the date for online registration for appointment
to the post of Head Teacher, Class-III is extended for
the period from 19.05.2012. It further appears that the
petitioners are in no position to fulfill online registration
as they do not have minimum five years' experience of
imparting education after B.Ed. and it is orally told to
the petitioners that one must have five years experience
of imparting education after getting degree of B.Ed. and
not prior thereto. In other words, experience of teaching
in the schools, government or private, prior to getting
degree of B.Ed. is not considered to determine eligibility
and hence online registration is refused.
3.3 Nonetheless, it appears that it is nowhere
mentioned in the Advertisement dated 22.03.2012 and
18.05.2012 that the petitioners would required the
experience of five years' after completing B.Ed. for the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7303/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026
undefined
post of Head Teacher. It is further stated that the
petitioners are in service as a primary teachers in self-
financed primary schools in the State of Gujarat since
around seven years and there are 5000 posts of Head
Teacher out of which 2500 posts will be filled in by way
of direct recruitment were teachers teaching in the self
financed primary schools are given opportunity to become
Head Teacher and the remaining 2500 posts are to be
filled by way of promotion and therefore that are not
available to the petitioners.
3.4 It further appears that B.Ed. for primary teachers
followed by Teachers Eligibility Test is made compulsory
only after implementation of the Central Act of 2009.
Prior thereto as per the Primary Education Act and
Rules teachers with a degree of PTC were qualified to
teach in the Primary Schools. Therefore, now to expect
that all the teachers teaching in the private primary
schools have to have experience of five years after B.Ed.,
is contrary to the Gujarat Primary Education Act and
Rules framed thereunder in other words, B.Ed. is not
compulsory to be qualified and eligible to become primary
teacher in the government school or in the private
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7303/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026
undefined
primary school prior to 2009 and therefore, now to
expect degree of B.Ed. compulsorily in the year 2012,
when the Central Act has come into force from and after
2009, is illegal, and unlawful. Hence, the present
petition.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS:
4. Mr. K.B. Pujara, learned counsel for the petitioners
has submitted as follows:
4.1 The impugned action of respondent in not allowing
the petitioners to apply for the post of Head Teacher
(Class-III), on the premise that they are not holding the
requisite working experience of five years as a teacher or
Vidya Sahayak in the school, inasmuch as, such
experience was not obtained after holding the degree of
B.Ed., is ex-facie erroneous and contrary to Rule 4(d) of
the Head Teacher, Class III, in the subordinate service
of the Directorate of Primary Education or respective
District or Municipal Primary Education Committee
Recruitment Rules, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as
"Rules, 2012").
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7303/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026
undefined
4.2 The Rule 4(d) of the Rules, 2012 is completely
misconstrued by the respondent, whereby it has wrongly
assumed that five years' teaching experience, which is
stipulated in the said rule would mean that the
candidate concerned must possess such working
experience of five years as a teacher after holding B.Ed.
degree.
4.3 The plain reading of the said rule would not
indicate that such five years' experience prescribed in the
rule would be considered from possessing the B.Ed.
degree as claimed, rather it suggests from its plain
reading that five years' experience of teaching either as
a teacher or Vidya Sahayak, separately or combined as
the case may be in any school, is self-sufficient to apply
for the post of Head Teacher.
4.4 It is settled position of law that when the rule is
silent as regards consideration of working experience
after possessing the degree, the respondent cannot be
allowed to add something in the rule, which is ostensibly
absent.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7303/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026
undefined
4.5 The respondent has failed to consider that the
professional experience of five years for imparting
education as a teacher or Vidya Sahayak, does not in
any manner, connect it with the degree qualification,
inasmuch as, for imparting education as Vidya Sahayak,
teacher concerned would not require to hold B.Ed.
degree.
4.6 The impugned action of the respondent is arbitrary,
capricious, and contrary to the rules, thereby the
petitioners were wrongly deprived of applying to the post
of Head Teacher pursuant to the advertisement in
question. Hence, it violates the fundamental rights of the
petitioners enshrined under Part III of the Constitution
of India.
4.7 Making the above submissions, learned advocate for
the petitioners would request this Court to allow the
present writ petition.
4.8 To buttress his arguments, he would rely on the
following judgments:
(i) Anil Kumar Gupta and Others vs. Municipal Corporation of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7303/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026
undefined
Delhi and Others reported in AIR 2000 SC 659.
(ii) Subhash vs. State of Mahashtra reported in 1995 Supp (3)
SCC 332.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT-STATE:-
5. Per contra, Ms. Nidhi Vyas has strenuously opposed
this petition, raising the following submissions:
5.1 The respondent-State has a prerogative to decide
the minimum qualification and eligibility criteria to select
the candidate for the post. The Rules, 2012 was enacted
by the State while exercising its power under Article 309
of the Constitution of India and, as per the Rules, 2012,
the petitioners having not possessed the requisite work
experience as required under Rule 4(d) of the Rules,
2012, the petitioners were not allowed to submit the
form.
5.2 This Court has very limited judicial power of review
to interfere in the recruitment process undertaken by the
State, inasmuch as, as per the settled legal position of
law, this Court cannot fix the criteria as regards age,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7303/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026
undefined
eligibility, work experience, etc., of the candidate.
5.3 The petitioners are not right in their submission
that five years' experience which is prescribed under
Rule 4(d) of the Rules, 2012 would include the
experience prior to possessing the B.Ed. degree by them.
The advertisement in question was for the post of Head
Teacher which requires more experienced person to be
appointed on such post; thereby the State in its wisdom
set the criteria of work experience of a teacher, who
imparted education as a teacher or Vidya Sahayak, as
the case may be, in the concerned school, who is
supposed to have B.Ed. degree for such work experience.
5.4 The post of Head Teacher is higher in rank, which
requires to have requisite experience with higher
educational qualification. The State in its wisdom decided
that a candidate should have at least five years'
experience as a teacher or Vidhy Sahayak, as the case
may be, after gaining the degree of B.Ed. The State
having been considered the nature of post and duties of
Head Teacher, if desire to appoint more qualified
experienced person to the post, the insistence of
petitioners is not justified and cannot be sustained.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7303/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026
undefined
5.5 The petitioners undisputedly do not have the
requisite working experience as prescribed under Rule
4(d) of the Rules, 2012, inasmuch as, none of the
petitioners have imparted education in the concerned
school for five years after holding a B.Ed. degree as on
the date of the advertisement. In that view of the
matter, the respondent has correctly not allowed the
petitioners to participate in the recruitment process.
5.6 The petitioners cannot be allowed to interpret the
said Rule 4(d) as per their whims and fancies, and the
entire thrust is without any basis. Even in earlier round
also, this Court had not disturbed the said rules when
its validity challenged.
5.7 The Rules, 2012, framed by the State exercising its
power, set out the eligibility criteria in the rule itself,
thereby all the requisite eligibility criteria required to be
possessed by the petitioners to apply for the post of
Head Teacher and, in the absence of meeting with all
eligibility criteria by the petitioners, cannot be allowed to
submit the form. Accordingly, the respondent has
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7303/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026
undefined
correctly not allowed the petitioners to submit the form.
5.8 As per the settled legal position of law, for
equivalence of educational qualification for appointments
to the public post, it is the prerogative of the appointing
authority to determine whether the candidate possesses
the required qualification or not. When the State has
decided that five years' working experience referred to in
said Rule 4 (d) would be after procuring B.Ed. degree,
such eligibility criteria cannot be questioned by the
petitioners.
5.9 It is also well settled legal position of law that it
is pure discretion of the employer to set the criteria of
selection including work experience with qualification for
appointment to a public post and the High Court should
not interfere with such discretion, as having limited
judicial review in that area.
5.10 Making the above submissions, learned AGP would
request this Court to dismiss the present writ petition.
5.11 To buttress her arguments, she would rely upon the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7303/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026
undefined
following judgments:
(i) Md. Firoz Mansuri vs. State of Bihar reported in 2026 (0) AIJEL-SC
76465.
(ii) Sajid Khan vs. L. Rahmathullah reported in 2025 (0) AIJEL-SC 74782
[equivalent citation: 2025 AIR SC 1300].
(iii) Zahoor Ahmad Rather vs. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad with Javid Ahmad
Dar vs. Naseer Ahmad Mir reported in 2018 (0) AIJEL-SC 63168
[equivalent citation: 2019 (2) SCC 404].
(iv) P.M. Latha vs. State of Kerala reported in 2003 (0) AIJEL-SC 20361
[equivalent citation: 2003 (3) SCC 541]
6. No other or further submissions were made by the
learned advocates for the respective parties.
ANALYSIS:
7. Having heard the learned advocates for the parties,
and on appreciation of their submissions, one cannot
dispute that the State-employer has complete discretion
to frame the rules for recruitment, whereby it may fix
eligibility criteria as per its own requirements. The State
is also free to fix working experience with possession of
requisite educational qualification by candidate. True, this
Court has limited scope of judicial review to interfere in
the recruitment process.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7303/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026
undefined
8. At the same time, it is equally true that when this
Court finds that if the respondent-State has misconstrued
its own recruitment rules framed by exercising its power
under Article 309 of the Constitution of India; thereby it
had not allowed a candidate to participate in the
recruitment process, and its such decision violates the
fundamental rights of a candidate; this Court is not
powerless to undo such arbitrary, erroneous, and perverse
decision of the State.
9. Keeping in the aforesaid aspect and law laid down
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in cited decisions, I would
like to analyze the submissions of the respective parties,
as recorded hereinabove.
10. The controversy germane to the matter is whether
the petitioners did not possess the requisite work
experience, leading to their candidature not being
considered for the post of Head Teacher; consequently,
their application forms were not accepted by the
respondent.
10.1 It is not in dispute that the petitioners did
have five years or more experience as teacher or Vidya
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7303/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026
undefined
Sahayak, as the case may be, imparting education in the
school concerned, but undisputedly they did not have
such five years' teaching experience after acquiring the
B.Ed. degree.
10.2 It is the stance of respondent-State that, as
per Rule 4(d) of Rules, 2012, a candidate must possess
five years' teaching experience either as teacher or Vidya
Sahayak, as the case may be, after acquiring the B.Ed.
degree. Due to this reason, the petitioners' forms were
not accepted as they had not fulfilled such criteria.
11. So, to appreciate the controversy germane to the
matter, it would be apposite to refer to Rule 4 of the
Rules, 2012, which reads as follows:
"4. To be eligible for appointment by direct selection to the post
mentioned in rule 2, a candidate shall,-
(a) not be more than 35 years of age:
Provided that the upper age limit may be relaxed in favour
of a candidate who belongs to the Scheduled castes,
Scheduled Tribes or Socially and Educationally Backward
Classes or Women in accordance with the provisions of the
Gujarat Civil Services Classification and Recruitment
(General) Rules, 1967:
Provided further that the upper age limit may be relaxed in
favour of a candidate who is in the service of the
Government of Gujarat in accordance with the provisions
of the Gujarat Civil Services Classification and
Recruitment (General) Rules, 1967.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7303/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026
undefined
(b) (1) possess a bachelor degree obtained from any of the
Universities or Institutions established or incorporated by or
under the Central or State Act in India or any other educational
institution recognized as such by the Government or declared as
deemed University under section 3 of the University Grants
Commission Act, 1956; and
(i) have completed two years certificate course of Primary
Teachers Course of any of the Educational Institution
recognized by the Government; or
(ii) possess one year degree in special education obtained
from any of the Universities or Institutions established or
incorporated by or under the Central or State Act in India
or any other educational institution recognized as such by
the Government or declared as deemed University under
section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956;
or
(iii) possess a degree in education obtained from any of the
Universities or Institutions established or incorporated by
or under the Central or State Act in India or any other
educational institution recognized as such by the
Government or declared as deemed University under
section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956;
or
(2) have passed Higher Secondary Certificate Examination from
the Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Board; and
possess,-
(i) a four years bachelor degree in Elementary Education
obtained from any of the Universities or Institutions
established or incorporated by or under the Central or
State Act in India or any other educational institution
recognized as such by the Government or declared as
deemed University under section 3 of the University Grants
Commission Act, 1956; or
(ii) a four years bachelor degree in education obtained
from any of the Universities or Institutions established or
incorporated by or under the Central or State Act in India
or any other Educational Institution recognized as such by
the Government or declared as deemed University under
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7303/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026
undefined
Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956;
(c) have passed the Head Teachers Aptitude Test as may be
prescribed by the government;
(d) have atleast five years separate or combined experience of
teaching as a Teacher or Vidhya Sahayak in Government or
Grant in Aid or Non Grant in Aid Private Lower Primary School
or Upper Primary School or Secondary Education School or
Higher Secondary Education School or Primary Education
Adhyapan Mandir or District Institute of Education and
Training ( DIET);
(e) possess the basic Knowledge of computer application as
prescribed in the Gujarat Civil Services Classification and
Recruitment (General) Rules, 1967; and
(f) possess adequate knowledge of Gujarati or Hindi or both"
Emphasis supplied.
12. The plain reading of the aforesaid Rules would
suggest that the work experience required by teacher,
who is applying for the post of Head Teacher, is five
years' teaching experience either as a teacher or Vidya
Sahayak in the school concerned. The aforesaid rule is
completely silent so far as such five years' teaching
experience as a teacher or Vidya Sahayak must be after
holding the degree of B.Ed. Nonetheless, it is true that
as per Rule 4(b)(2), one of the eligibility criteria is
holding four year bachelor's degree in elementary
education or education, as the case may be, i.e., B.Ed.
Nevertheless, it is nowhere indicated in the entire Rule
4 that the five years' teaching experience prescribed in
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7303/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026
undefined
Rule 4(d) would attach with the B.Ed. degree.
12.1 As per Rule 4(d), the five years' teaching
experience prescribed includes separate or combined
experience of teaching as a teacher or Vidya Sahayak in
the school concerned. There is no dispute between the
parties, rather learned AGP during the course of the
argument was unable to controvert the fact that for
imparting education as Vidya Sahayak, no B.Ed. degree
required by Vidya Sahayak. The requisite qualification to
work as Vidya Sahayak would be PTC (Primary Teachers
Course), which would be a two-year certificate course of
primary teachers' course. If this factor would be
considered and taken into account, as Rule 4(d) includes
the teaching experience as Vidya Sahayak in that five
years' experience, logically, it can be gainsaid that the
said work experience of five years as prescribed in Rule
4(d) of the Rules, 2012 has a direct connection with the
degree qualification, i.e., B.Ed.
13. At this stage, it would be apt to refer to and rely
upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of Anil Kumar Gupta (supra), wherein, in a somewhat
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7303/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026
undefined
identical factual situation, it held thus:
"16. On those contentions, the points that arise for consideration
are as follows:
...(2) Whether, while deciding whether the respondents had two
years' experience, the experience gained while holding diplomas
could also be counted in addition to the experience gained after
obtaining degree? ....
20. We may point out that in the present case, the relevant
provisions applicable and the notification dated 30.6.89 inviting
applications refer to essential qualification as (i) Degree and (ii)
2 years' 'professional' experience. As stated earlier, experience
upto 2 years is the minimum and those above 2 years, get 1/2
marks each year's experience ranging between 3 to 12 years, the
maximum marks being 5 for experience. We may at the outset
state that the provision regarding experience speaks only of
"professional experience" for two years and does not, in any
manner, connect it with the degree qualification. In our view,
the case on hand is similar to Subhash Vs. State of Maharashtra
(1995 Supp.(3) SCC 332) where, while considering Rule 3(e) of
the relevant Recruitment Rules, namely, the Maharashtra Motor
Vehicles Department (Recruitment) Rules, 1991, this Court
pointed out that the rule 3(e) which required one year
experience in registered Automobile Workshop did not make any
difference between acquisition of such experience prior to or
after the acquisition of the basic qualification.
23. The above ruling in M.B.Joshi and Others Vs. Satish
Kumar Pandey reported in 1993 Supp (2) SCC 419 was followed
in D.Stephen Joshph Vs. Union of India and Others reported in
(1997) 4 SCC 753. In that case, this Court again distinguished
N.Suresh Nathan and Another Vs. Union of India and Other
reported in 1992 Supp (1) 584. This Court however cautioned that
any practice which was de hors a Rule could be no justification
for the department to rely upon. Such past practice must relate to
the interpretation of a rule in a particular manner. This Court
then followed M.B.Joshi (supra) as being one where the language
of the rule was specific that "if a particular length of services in
the feeder post together with educational qualification enables a
candidate to be considered for promotions, it will not be proper to
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7303/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026
undefined
count the experience only from the date of acquisition of superior
educational qualification because such interpretation will violate
the very purpose to give incentive to the employee to acquire
higher education". This decision in D.Stephen Joshph (supra) also
supports the case of the respondents.
24. Therefore, on the language of the notification dated
30.6.89, we are of the view that the 2 years professional
experience need not entirely be experience gained after
obtaining the degree."
(emphasis supplied)
13.1 The ratio of the aforesaid decision of the
Hon'ble Apex Court would clearly indicate that if the
professional experience that is sought by the State-
employer, as per recruitment rules, does not in any
manner connect it with the degree qualification, it is
unjust and unfair on the part of the State-employer to
consider such work experience gained after obtaining the
degree. The ratio of the aforesaid decision would be
squarely applicable to the case on hand, inasmuch as
Rule 4(d) of the Rules, 2012 also does not suggest that
professional experience, i.e., five years' teaching
experience as a teacher or Vidya Sahayak, as the case
may be, must be gained after obtaining the B.Ed. degree.
The entire basis upon which the respondent denied the
candidature of the petitioners is a complete misreading
and misinterpretation of its own rules, which resulted in
a denial of right of petitioners' right to apply for the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7303/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026
undefined
post of Head Teacher.
14. So far as the decisions, which are cited by the
learned AGP are concerned, as aforesaid, there is no
scintilla of doubt that this Court has limited jurisdiction
to interfere with the recruitment process and has limited
judicial power of review in the process of appointment.
Having observed hereinabove, this Court is very much
conscious of the fact that it cannot interfere with
eligibility criteria set out by the State having enacted
the Rules. Nonetheless, the State has failed to adhere to
its Recruitment Rules by misconstruing them and
insisted upon an eligibility criterion, which is not set out
in the statutory rules. The impugned decision runs
contrary to the recruitment rules and cannot be allowed
to stand. It is well settled law that a decision which is
contrary to policy or rules of State is considered
arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
[See:- Bhika Ram & Another vs. State of Rajasthan and Others
reported in 2025 INSC 1482].
15. Thus, in view of the aforesaid, none of the decisions
cited by learned AGP would help the stance of the
respondent-State, inasmuch as, this Court is neither
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7303/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026
undefined
interfering with the recruitment process which is
undertaken by the respondent nor relaxing any
educational or work experience criteria set out in the
Rules, 2012; rather as observed above, the respondent
has failed in its duty to adhere to the Rules, 2012 by
completely misinterpreting Rule 4(d) and added something
in it, which is not apparently found, i.e., five years'
teaching experience gained after obtaining B.Ed. Degree.
In light of the aforesaid, this Court cannot allow the
State to violate the fundamental rights of the petitioners,
inasmuch as refusal to allow them to submit their
application forms based on a misconception resulted in
denying them the opportunity to apply for public
employment.
CONCLUSION:
16. In view of the foregoing observations, discussions,
and reasons, I am of the view that the respondent has
wrongly denied the petitioners to apply for the post of
Head Teacher and, as such, it violates their fundamental
right to apply for public employment, which is enshrined
in Part III of the Constitution of India.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7303/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026
undefined
17. Having held hereinabove that the impugned action
of the respondent runs contrary to the Rules, 2012 and,
as such, the petitioners did possess the requisite teaching
experience of five years' as teacher or Vidya Sahayak, as
the case may be, as on the date of the advertisement in
question, the respondent requires to consider the
candidature of the petitioners as per their own merits.
18. This Court, vide its order dated 14.06.2012, directed
the respondent to keep four seats vacant and any
appointment which will be made will be subject to the
result of this petition.
19. In view of the above, the respondent concerned is
hereby directed to accept the forms of the petitioners
and, if the petitioners are possessing all the other
eligibility criteria as per Rules, 2012 and found eligible
to be appointed to the post of Head Teachers, they shall
be appointed as Head Teachers. Such exercise shall be
completed by the respondent concerned on or before
31.03.2026.
20. It is made clear that in a case where the
petitioners will be appointed to the post of Head
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7303/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2026
undefined
Teachers, their appointment date shall be considered as
the date on which the last candidate was appointed to
the post of Head Teacher as per the advertisement dated
22.03.2012 in question.
20.1 Nonetheless, the petitioners are not entitled to claim
any monetary benefits from such notional date of their
appointment until their actual appointment; however, the
notional period of their service shall be considered for
the purposes of continuity of service, seniority, and
retiral benefits.
21. In view of the foregoing conclusions, the present
petition is partly allowed. Rule is made absolute to the
aforesaid extent. No orders as to costs.
(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J)
DIWAKAR SHUKLA
