KEVALKUMAR KANUBHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard learned counsel Mr.Dharmesh Gurjar and initially Mr.Prashant Chavda and on being called upon that anyone of them may address the arguments, learned counsel Mr.Dharmesh Gurjar has addressed his arguments. At his request, the matter is passed over to be called at 2:30 p.m.

(2.) Again, matter is called at 2.30 p.m. and Mr.Prashant Chavda has addressed further arguments. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking for a direction and/or writ of mandamus to the respondent authority to conduct TET examination firstly and then, re-issue advertisement for appointments of the fresh teachers as it would protect the interest of newly graduated B.Ed. candidates, namely, those who have graduated from 2018 onwards till date and as such, petitioner claims he is espousing the larger public interest.

(3.) We have heard initially Mr.Prashant Chavda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and thereafter, Mr.Dharmesh Gurjar appeared and sought the leave of the Court to argue the matter on behalf of Mr.Prashant Chavda. Though such procedure is impermissible, on account of learned counsel Mr.Prashant Chavda contending that he is a junior counsel, we permitted Mr.Dharmesh Gurjar and he has addressed the arguments by reiterating the grounds urged in the petition. At their request, the matter was called in the post lunch session and again, Mr.Prashant Chavda sought the leave of the Court to address the arguments which was permitted. He has reiterated grounds urged in the petition.