STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. VASOYA CHIRAG VINODBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Manan Mehta for the appellant State and learned advocate Ms. Mamta Vyas and learned advocate Mr. Subramaniam Iyer for the respondents original petitioners in the respective Letters Patent Appeals.

(2.) It is the common judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 17.2.2020 in Special Civil Application Nos.5936 of 2017 and three allied petitions which is sought to be called in question in this Letters Patent Appeals. Learned Single Judge directed the respondent authorities to give appointment letters to the petitioners for the post of Sikshan Sahayaks in the subject of Maths and Science. The issue considered by learned Single Judge was whether the qualification held by the petitioners in Graduation and Post Graduation in the subject of Bio-Technology could be said to be a qualification acceptable and liable to be treated equivalent for the purpose of appointment.

(3.) Learned Assistant Government Pleader points out that the described qualification was B.Sc. in the subject of Science and Technology / Maths. He sought to demonstrate from the answer sheets of the petitioners that the petitioners have passed their Graduation in the subject of Biology which could not have been treated equivalent qualification in view of the prescription in the advertisement. Not only that learned Assistant Government Pleader relied on the order of Division Bench of this Court dated 5.10.2021 in Letters Patent Appeal No.827 of 2021 which involved more or less similar controversy. This Court on the basis of the order of the Supreme Court in Shah Kalpesh Kanubhai v. Gujarat Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Teaching and 2 others being Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.13252 of 2021, admitted the appeal and granted stay against the directions issued by the learned Single Judge. By the said decision in Shah Kalpesh Kanubhai (supra), the Supreme Court stayed the order of learned Single Judge confirmed by the Letters Patent Appeal Bench in which the controversy was by and large similar.