Dismissed

Pragnaben Narsinhbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat

Gujarat HC15 Feb 2021SCA/3170/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 227, the High Court was asked to direct the authorities to allow the petitioner to register for a teacher recruitment drive, claiming her TET certificate validity would be extended to life-time. The Court held that the NCTE resolution was prospective and existing recruitment rules barred her application.

What did the court decide?

The petition dismissing the writ petition without granting leave to apply for the post.

Pragnaben Narsinhbhai Patel Vs State of Gujarat — Education and Admissions | Gujarat HC (2021)

¶1

C/SCA/3170/2021 ORDER

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3170 of 2021

¶3

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

¶4

PRAGNABEN NARSINHBHAI PATEL

¶5

Versus

¶6

STATE OF GUJARAT

¶7

============================================================================== Appearance:

¶8

GAYATRI P VYAS(9391) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR MAHESH BHAVSAR(1781) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MRS HM BHAVSAR(5340) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 SONAL J BHAVSAR(7399) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3

¶9

ADVANCE COPY SERVED TO GOVERNMENT PLEADER/PP(99) for the Respondent(s) No. 1

¶10

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

¶11

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.G.URAIZEE Date : 15/02/2021 ORAL ORDER

¶12

1.Heard Mr. Mahesh Bhavsar, learned
advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Krutik
Parekh, learned AGP for respondent No.1.

¶13

2.In this petition under Article 227 of
Constitution of India, the petitioner has
made following substantive prayers:-

¶14

“6(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction and be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to allow the petitioner to register her TAT Number and further the petitioner may be allowed to submit her application for the aforesaid posts of secondary and higher secondary teachers pursuant to the advertisement produced at ANNEXURE-B forthwith in the interest of justice'

¶15

(B) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondents authorities to allow the petitioner to

¶16

Page 1 of 7

¶17

C/SCA/3170/2021 ORDER

¶18

register her TAT Number and further the petitioner may be allowed to submit her application for the aforesaid posts of secondary and higher secondary teachers pursuant to the advertisement produced at ANNEXURE-B forthwith in the interest of justice.”

¶19

3.The facts in brief giving rise to the
present petition are that the petitioner who
belongs to OBC category has completed M.A. in
the year 2011, TAT Secondary in the year 2012
and TET in the year 2013. An advertisement
for the post of secondary and higher
secondary Shikshak Sahayak came to be issued
by the respondents for the secondary and
higher secondary grant-in-aid schools. The
petitioner wanted to apply for the post of
teacher in the secondary and higher secondary
schools. She, therefore, applied for TAT
Registration which was not accepted being
“not qualified” and “currently registration
is not available for your TAT Number”. It is
the case of the petitioner that as per the
informationuploadedinthe

¶20

hindustantimes.com National Counsil for
Teachers Education (NCTE) has approved the
extension of validity of Teacher Eligibility
Test (TET) Certificate from 7 years to life
time and as per the minutes of NCTE general

¶21

Page 2 of 7

¶22

C/SCA/3170/2021 ORDER

¶23

body meeting resolution those who have
already passed out (already having TET
certificate), NCTE will take legal opinion
and will act accordingly. It is, therefore,
submitted that the petitioner ought to have
been allowed the registration her TAT Number
and who have been allowed to submit her
application for the post of secondary and
higher secondary teachers as pending issues
notification approved validity of TET
certificate for life time instead of 7 years
and prospective and retrospective effect then
the case of the petitioner would require
consideration. Hence, this petition.

¶24

4.Mr. Bhavsar, learned advocate for the
petitioner vehemently submits that the
acceptance of the application of the
petitioner would not cause any prejudice to
the respondents while on the other hand, if
the petitioner is not permitted to
participated in the recruitment process, she
would be age barred in the next recruitment
process. He vehemently submits that the NCTE
has already passed a resolution for extending
the validity of TET certificate to life time
and there are very strong chances that based

¶25

Page 3 of 7

¶26

C/SCA/3170/2021 ORDER

¶27

on legal opinion the validity of those who
having TET certificate would also be extended
for life time with retrospective effect. He,
therefore, submits that the petition requires
consideration and the respondents may be
directed to accept the application of the
petitioner.

¶28

5.Mr. Krutik Parekh, learned AGP submits
that as per the Recruitment Rules No.11(1)(b)
for teachers of secondary and higher
secondary schools, the marks secured by the
candidate in TAT is valid for 5 years only.
He submits that the petitioner has passed TAT
examination in the year 2011, and therefore,
as per the prevailing recruitment rules, the
petitioner is not eligible to apply for the
post. It is his further submission that an
advertisement for recruitment was published
on 11.02.2011 and last date for submitting
application form for higher secondary teacher
was 24.11.2021 while secondary schools it was
27.1.2021. He submits that therefore if the
last date for accepting the application has
gone long back. He also submits that
permitting the petitioner to submit his
application would cause prejudice to other

¶29

Page 4 of 7

¶30

C/SCA/3170/2021 ORDER

¶31

similarly situated persons. He, therefore,
submits that the petition does not require
consideration.

¶32

6.I have considered the rival submissions.
It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner
has passed TAT examination in the year 2011.
It is also an undisputed fact that Rule
No.11(1)(b) of the teacher and head masters
in secondary and higher secondary schools
(Procedure for Selection Rules), 2011
(“Rules” for short) provides that the marks
secured by the concerned candidate in TAT is
valid for 5 years from the date of result of
TAT.

¶33

7.The petitioner, on the basis of
Resolution passed in the meeting of 5th
General Body of NCTE which was held on
29.09.2020 wherein agenda item No.7 which was
for consideration of the issue related to the
extension of validity of teachers eligibility
test from 7 years to life time, it was
approved as under:-

¶34

“The Council considered the agenda item and approved the validity of TET certificate changing it from 7 years to the Life time. This provision would have

¶35

Page 5 of 7

¶36

C/SCA/3170/2021 ORDER

¶37

prospective effect and for those have already passed out already having TET certificate), NCTE would take legal opinion and will act accordingly.”

¶38

8.It is thus eminently clear from the above
resolution that the provision is made
prospective. To put it in other words, the
candidates who would secured marks in TAT
henceforth would be valid for life time
instead of 7 years. However, those
candidates, who have already passed out i.e.
those already having TET certificate, it was
decided to take legal opinion for taking
further action.

¶39

9.It is thus vividly clear that for those
who have already possessing TET certificate,
no change is made and there certificate is
valid for a period of 5 years as per Rule
No.11(1)(b) of the Rules. The recruitment
process is always conducted on the prevailing
recruitment rules, and therefore, when as per
the prevailing recruitment rules admittedly
the petitioner being ineligible, cannot be
permitted to participate in recruitment
process on the ground of some eventuality
which is likely to take place at a future
date.

¶40

Page 6 of 7

¶41

C/SCA/3170/2021 ORDER

¶42

10.The contention of Mr. Bhavsar, learned
advocate for the petitioner is that the
acceptance of application of the petitioner
would not cause any prejudice to the
respondents and on the other hand non
acceptance would cause prejudice to the
petitioner is without merit. Even if it is
assumed that based on legal opinion the
validity of the marks secured in TET would be
made for life with retrospective effect, then
also the eligibility criteria cannot be
changed. To accommodate the petitioner alone
in the midst of recruitment process.

¶43

11.In view of the above, I am of the view
that the petitioner cannot be permitted to
participate in the recruitment process for
the post of teachers in secondary and higher
secondary schools as she is not possessing
valid TET certificate.

¶44

12.The petition, therefore, lacks merit and
deserves to be dismissed at threshold and
accordingly it is dismissed.

¶45

(A.G.URAIZEE, J)

¶46

Manoj

¶47

Page 7 of 7

Pragnaben Narsinhbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pragnaben Narsinhbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jashwantbhai S/O Bhikhabhai Solanki Vs State of Gujarat

Chetanbhai Dhanjibhai Karodia Vs State of Gujarat

Ishwarbhai S/O Valabhai Rabari Vs State of Gujarat

Hansaben Dhudabhai Joshi Vs State of Gujarat

Bharatkumar Kantibhai Prajapati Vs State of Gujarat

Vitthalbhai Ramjibhai Desai Vs State of Gujarat