(1.) In this Letters Patent Appeal, the petitioner has assailed the judgment of learned Single Judge rendered on 10-04-2001 in writ petition, being Special Civil Application No. 1321 of 2001, whereby the petition came to be dismissed.
(2.) We have heard Ms.Disha Nanavati, learned Advocate for the petitioner; Ms.Harsha Devani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos. 1,2 and 3; and, Mr.R.A Mishra, learned Advocate for respondent No.4. We have, also, examined the factual profile of the case. Our attention is, also, invited to the decision of the Full Bench, rendered on 03-12-2003 in Special Civil Application No. 8075 of 2001 and others, in which, one of us (J.N.Bhatt, J.) was a party and the subsequent Resolution No.PRE-1096-3050-K dated 12-02-2004 issued by the Department of Education, Government of Gujarat.
(3.) The learned Single Judge, while dismissing the petition of the appellant - original petitioner - held that, though he was placed at Sr. No.25 in the Waiting List, he is not eligible for the post of Vidhya Sahayak under the District Primary Education Officer, Junagadh, on the premise that a teacher with the qualification of B.Ed. cannot be considered to be a teacher with the qualification of P.T.C., whereas, the petitioner had the qualification of C.P.Ed. i.e. Certificate of Physical Education and not P.T.C. However, our attention is drawn that the appellant original petitioner - before us, has been holding D.P.Ed. i.e. Diploma in Physical Education in place of C.P.Ed. i.e. Certificate in Physical Education. The learned Single Judge, also, further held that the petitioner's name was merely included in the Waiting List and that the petitioner had not been appointed to the post and, therefore, he had no indefeasible right to be appointed to the post of Assistant Teacher in a Primary School. On this premise, the claim of the applicant original petitioner - for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher or Vidhya Sahayak or not, was not upheld.