Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Gujarat
  4. /
  5. 2012
  6. /
  7. January

Hemaben vs State

High Court Of Gujarat|29 February, 2012

JUDGMENT / ORDER

1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-
"(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to admit the present petition.
(B) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction by quashing and setting aside the Rule-11(3) of procedure for selection Rules, 2011 for the selection of Teachers and Head Master of Registered Private Secondary and Higher Secondary Schools has being ultra virus and in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and against the principle of natural justice and further be pleased to direct the respondent authority to consider the period of entire experience for one year for giving marks for experience and equal marking system for graduate degree and post graduate degree may be replace by amending the said provision of Rule-11(3) for the post of Head Master and further be pleased to declare that the petitioner is entitled and eligible to get the 5 marks of total experience of 19 years and 11 months and accordingly the respondent may be directed to amend the merits list and further be pleased to declare that the petitioner has been given preference for Dist. Vadodara and Surat only.
(C) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue appropriate writ or direction by staying the further implementation of marking system provided for the Head Master as Rule-11(3) and further be pleased to restrain the respondent authority for insisting for the petitioner for Dist. Dahod and further be pleased to direct the respondent authority to consider the Dist. Vadodara and Surat only for selection of district of the petitioner pending hearing and final disposal of the present petition.
(D) To grant such other and further relief/s as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. Heard Mr.Bipin P. Jasani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms.Megha Chitaliya, learned A.G.P. appearing on advance copy for the respondents.
3. It is an admitted position that pursuant to the interview held as per the Teachers and Head Masters of Registered Private Secondary and Higher Secondary Schools (Procedure for Selection) Rules, 2011 (for short, the said 'Rules'), the petitioner is selected as a Head Mistress in Dahod District.
4. Mr.Jasani, learned counsel, at the outset, submitted that the petitioner had given preference as stated in the column of preferences at Page-44 of the petition and Dahod District was her preference No.9 and, therefore, the present petition is filed. Mr.Jasani, learned counsel submitted that in pursuance to the said selection, the petitioner has been asked to appear before Camp on 01.03.2011, as contemplated under the said Rules. Mr.Jasani, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is a lady with an experience of almost two decades as teacher and, therefore, she should have been selected as per the preference given by her. Mr.Jasani, learned counsel, therefore, submitted that the petitioner may be permitted to file representation for the same as well as for the contentions that are raised in the petition and the same would serve the ends of justice.
5. Considering the averments made in the petition and submissions made by Mr.Jasani, learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is permitted to file representation before respondent No.2 for posting the petitioner in any other district except Dahod. If such a representation is filed by the petitioner, the same shall be considered in accordance with law and taking into consideration the provisions of the Rules and, more particularly, Rule 13 of the said Rules. Respondent No.2 shall take such a decision within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the said representation.
6. It is, however, made clear that this Court has not examined the petition on merits and respondent No.2 shall decide such a representation on its own merits.
7. If any adverse order is passed, the petitioner is at liberty to revive the present petition.
8. With the above observations, the petition stands disposed of. Direct service today is permitted.
(R.M.CHHAYA, J.) Hitesh Top
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Hemaben vs State

Court

High Court Of Gujarat

JudgmentDate
29 February, 2012