Disposed

Vala Jaydeepsinh Naughanbhai v. the State of Gujarat

Gujarat HC12 Jul 2021LPA/1651/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held the Letters Patent Appeal against the upholding of TET exam rules was infructuous due to a subsequent circular amending the rules to allow multiple attempts. The appeal was disposed of, holding the amended guidelines to apply.

What did the court decide?

Letters Patent Appeal declared infructuous; order of Single Judge set aside; new amended circulars to apply.

Vala Jaydeepsinh Naughanbhai Vs the State of Gujarat — Education and Admissions | Gujarat HC (2021)

¶1

ORDERDATED:12/07/2021

¶2

C/LPA/1651/2012

¶3

VALA JAYDEEP SINH NAUGHANBHAI & 13 other(s)n Versus THE STATE OF GUJARAT & 65 other(s)

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶5

h R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO 1651of2012 In

¶6

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO 11234of2012

¶7

==========================================================

¶8

VALA JAYDEEP SINH NAUGHANBHAI & 13 other(s)

¶9

Versus

¶10

THE STATE OF GUJARAT & 65 other(s)

¶11

==========================================================

¶12

Appearance:

¶13

MR HARDIK J JANI(6497)forthe Appellant(s)No 1,10,11,12,13,14,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 DS.AFF. NOT FILED(R)(71)for the Respondent(s)No 2 MR K M ANTANI,ASSTT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER(1)for the Respondent(s)No 1

¶14

==========================================================

¶15

CORAM: HONOURABLEDR JUSTICEVINEETKOTHARI

¶16

and HONOURABLEMR JUSTICEB N KARIA

¶17

Date:12/07/2021

¶18

ORALORDER

¶19

(PER:HONOURABLEDR JUSTICEVINEETKOTHARI)

¶20

This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order dated

¶21

17.9.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No 11234 of 2012 – Patel Anilkumar Prahladbhai & 63 others Vs State of Gujarat and another .

¶22

The Writ Petition regarding the preference of the serial number of

¶23

TET exams, since number of attempts were allowed to be taken. The Circular dated 27/4/2011 at Annexure “E” was in question and the

¶24

Page1of9

¶25

ORDERDATED:12/07/2021

¶26

C/LPA/1651/2012

¶27

VALA JAYDEEP SINH NAUGHANBHAI & 13 other(s)n Versus THE STATE OF GUJARAT & 65 other(s)

¶28

learned Single Judge made following observations while disposing of the writ petition:-

¶29

“7.0 As a result of hearing and perusal of the record, it is clear that the he only question raised in the petition is with regard to the reasonableness of clause 5 of the Circular dated 27.4.2011 which states that if the candidate chooses to appear in further TET examination which may be conducted within five years , then the last result of the examination will be considered for the purpose of appointment.

¶30

8.0 According to the petitioners, this stipulation is unreasonable, but failed to appoint out as to how the same is unreasonable or arbitrary. It is true that the candidate has been given an option to appear in further examinations to improve his marks. If the clause is truly interpreted, it would be clear that such stipulation is meant only for improving the marks and not otherwise. Therefore, a candidate who is confident of getting higher marks only needs to attend the examination. If such a candidate appears and scores higher marks, his such last marks would be considered irrespective of whether the marks are higher or lower.

¶31

8.1 There is no rule that if one candidate scores less marks then his last mark should be considered and scores higher marks then the last marks should be considered. If

¶32

Page2of9

¶33

ORDERDATED:12/07/2021

¶34

C/LPA/1651/2012

¶35

VALA JAYDEEP SINH NAUGHANBHAI & 13 other(s)n Versus THE STATE OF GUJARAT & 65 other(s)

¶36

such a free hand is given, all the candidates will appear in the examinations as a routine course as he or she will know that even if he/she scores less marks, the marks of last examination would be considered. There cannot be such a stipulation for the simple reason that the respondent authority is not supposed to take examination of all the candidates who are not going to score higher marks. Time, money and manpower are required to conduct such examination. If there is a universal rule that a candidate can go on appearing in the examination without scoring higher marks, it would defeat the purpose of giving opportunity to score higher marks.

¶37

8.2 The sole purpose of the stipulation is to extend opportunity to deserving candidates and not to all. Therefore only those who are confident to score higher marks needs to appear in the subsequent examination and such a practice would reduce the burden of the concerned authority. I am therefore of the view that there cannot be any arbitrariness in considering the marks obtained in the last examination by a candidate if the candidates appears for examination for scoring higher marks.

¶38

8.3 However, the contention that if one fails in the last examination, then his last marks should be considered in case he passed in the earlier examination should be

¶39

Page3of9

¶40

ORDERDATED:12/07/2021

¶41

C/LPA/1651/2012

¶42

VALA JAYDEEP SINH NAUGHANBHAI & 13 other(s)n Versus THE STATE OF GUJARAT & 65 other(s)

¶43

accepted. Suppose a candidate appears in the first instance and passes in the said examination and then he appears in the subsequent examination for scoring higher marks and fails in the same, it would work against his interest. In this case he had already passed in the earlier examination and by chance he could not succeed through the next examination. It is an admitted fact that the validity of the first examination would be for a period of five years. Therefore, if one fails in the subsequent examination, then he cannot be deprived of his earlier success which is already in operation for five years. Therefore this Court is of the opinion that if one passes in the earlier examination and thereafter fails in the subsequent examination, then it would be in the interest of the candidate to consider his result of ‘passing’ in the last examination which is already in operation.

¶44

9.0 In the premises aforesaid, it is held that the stipulation that if one scores less marks in the subsequent examination than the earlier examination, the last marks obtained by him shall be considered for all purposes. There is no illegality in clause 5 of the Circular dated 27.04.2011. However, it is held that if one passes in the earlier examination and he fails in the subsequent examination, his earlier result of ‘passing’ the examination which is already in operation for five years shall be considered. It is clarified

¶45

Page4of9

¶46

ORDERDATED:12/07/2021

¶47

C/LPA/1651/2012

¶48

VALA JAYDEEP SINH NAUGHANBHAI & 13 other(s)n Versus THE STATE OF GUJARAT & 65 other(s)

¶49

and ordered accordingly. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs.

¶50

10.0 It is also observed that If the petitioners have not appeared in the subsequent examinations and if they had passed in the earlier examination and are qualified, their case will be considered by the respondent authority.

¶51

The Present Letters Patent Appeal was filed by the persons who were aggrieved by the success of the writ Petitioners, namely, Vala Jaydeepsinh Naughanbhai and 13 others . The remaining writ petitioners before the learned Single Judge have been arraigned as Respondent No.3 to 66 in the present Letters Patent Appeal.

¶52

This Letters Patent Appeal was filed in the year 2012 i.e. on 9.11.2012. However, during the pendency of the present Letters Patent Appeal, the State Government has amended the said impugned Circular dated 27.4.2011 and has issued new Circular dated 6^th June, 2013 which is quoted hereinbelow for ready reference and with which both parties are now satisfied.

¶53

Page5of9

¶54

ORDERDATED:12/07/2021

¶55

C/LPA/1651/2012

¶56

VALA JAYDEEP SINH NAUGHANBHAI & 13 other(s)n Versus THE STATE OF GUJARAT & 65 other(s)

¶57

Teachers' Eligibility Test for Primary Teachers

¶58

Government of Gujarat Education Department Amendment Resolution No. PRE-1111-711-Ka Sachivalay, Gandhinagar

¶59

06/06/2013

¶60

To be read with: -

¶61

(1) Resolution No. PRE-1111-711-Ka dated 27/04/2011 of Education Department

¶62

(2) Letter no. RaPBo/TET-HTAT/ 2012/4373-74 of the State Examination Board, Gandhinagar.

¶63

(3) Director of Primary Education's letter no. PraShiNi/ Niti/12/Ka/95.

¶64

(4) Judgment dated 17/09/2012 of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in SCA No. 11234/2012 and C.A. No. 13929/2012 and C.A. No. 13930/2012 in LPA no. 1650/2012 in SCA no. 11234/2012

¶65

Amendment Resolution: -

¶66

Considering the proposal vide letter dated 10/12/2012, referred above at Ref.(2), of the State Examination Board, Gandhinagar, para no. 2(iv)b and (vi)(1) of the resolution referred above at Ref.(1) dated 27/04/2011 is amended as stated below.

¶67

(1) In this section, a candidate shall select the subjects in accordance with his qualification.

¶68

Mathematics and Science

¶69

¶70

 Languages (English: 20 marks, Gujarati: 20 marks, Hindi: 20 marks and Sanskrit: 15

¶71

Page6of9

¶72

ORDERDATED:12/07/2021

¶73

C/LPA/1651/2012

¶74

VALA JAYDEEP SINH NAUGHANBHAI & 13 other(s)n Versus THE STATE OF GUJARAT & 65 other(s)

¶75

marks)

¶76

¶77

Social Science (History, Geography, Civics, Economics etc.)

¶78

(2) Para 3(b) of the above mentioned resolution is amended as below.

¶79

(B) Candidates of Higher Primary Education – Std.6 to 8 shall be considered as qualified only if they obtain minimum 60 percents in Section-1 and Section-2 altogether.

¶80

(3) Para (5) of the aforesaid resolution is amended as

¶81

below.

¶82

“Validity of the certificate of Teacher's Eligibility Test shall remain for the period of five years. The number of attempts for appearing in the test is not stipulated . Maximum number of attempts will be allowed to appear in this test. After appearing once in Teacher’s Eligibility Test, any candidate can appear in the test more than once for their own qualitative improvement and best merit and in that situation, the certificate who will produce the certificate of passing TET examination for the recruitment of teacher would be taken into consideration. If the candidate intends, he can appear in

¶83

Page7of9

¶84

ORDERDATED:12/07/2021

¶85

C/LPA/1651/2012

¶86

VALA JAYDEEP SINH NAUGHANBHAI & 13 other(s)n Versus THE STATE OF GUJARAT & 65 other(s)

¶87

Teacher Eligibility Test for Primary Teacher as well as for Higher Primary Teacher; both.”

¶88

Among the above amendments, the amendment showed in Para-3 has been issued considering the judgment dated 17/09/2012 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in S.C.A. No.11234/2012 and the judgment dated 03/05/2013 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in C.A. No.13929/2012 and C.A. No.13930/2012 in L.P.A. No.1650/2012 and 1651/2012 in S.C.A. No.11234/2012 filed by several candidates. It is clarified that this amendment, however, will be subject to final judgment of both the said L.P.A.

¶89

By the order and in the name of

¶90

the Governor of Gujarat,

¶91

The new Circular dated 6^th June, 2013 is more beneficial to the persons appearing in the TET examination and they have now the option to produce their result of any one of the TET examination because multiple attempts are allowed to them by the State Government and the certificate is valid for a period of five years.

¶92

In view of this, the present Letters Patent Appeal has become infructuous and taking on record the new Circular dated 6^th June, 2013 ,

¶93

Page8of9

¶94

ORDERDATED:12/07/2021

¶95

C/LPA/1651/2012

¶96

VALA JAYDEEP SINH NAUGHANBHAI & 13 other(s)n Versus THE STATE OF GUJARAT & 65 other(s)

¶97

the present Letters Patent Appeal is disposed of in those terms and by setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge and it is held that the Guidelines given in the new amended Circular dated 6^th June, 2013 shall apply to the concerned candidates accordingly.

¶98

With these observations, the present Letters Patent Appeal stands disposed of. No costs.

¶99

(DR VINEETKOTHARI,J)

¶100

(B N KARIA,J)

¶101

BEENA SHAH

¶102

Page9of9

Vala Jaydeepsinh Naughanbhai v. the State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vala Jaydeepsinh Naughanbhai v. the State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deputy Director Directorate of Enforment Government of India Vs M/S. Biotor Industries Ltd.

Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement Government of India Vs M/S. Biotor Industries Ltd.

General Manager Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs Chavda Jitendrakumar Popatji

Kamshibhai Raghabhai Vs Chief Conservator of Forest

State of Gujarat Vs Husainbhai Yakubbhai Maru

Chief Engineer (Construction) Vs Presiding Officer or Successor in Office