YOGI VINUKANT SHANKERLAL Vs. DISTRICT PRIMARY EDUCATION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) : The appellants submitted applications for selection to the post of Vidhya Sahayak. The Education Department of Government of Gujarat has formulated a scheme for appointment of primary school teachers. It is called "Vidhya Sahayak Scheme". As per the scheme, the primary teachers are to be appointed on the district-wise basis and a consolidated salary of Rs.2500.00 per month would be paid to the teachers. Previously, there was another scheme for appointment of primary teachers as 'balguru', and the recruitment was on the basis of taluka-wise, and several such primary school teachers were appointed. Under the new scheme, the persons who were already selected as balguru have also to be considered for appointment. As per the scheme, the District Primary Education Officer shall select the candidates and the Director of Primary Education has been given authority to lay down conditions for such selection. Advertisement was published for inviting applications and one of the conditions laid down in the advertisement was that the applicant should submit the original certificates of PTC and SSC, which have been prescribed as basic qualification for selection. The appellants wanted to submit applications for more than one district and have submitted the original certificates of PTC and SSC in one district, and, so far as the applications for other districts are concerned, the appellants have submitted xerox copies of certificates of PTC and SSC with the applications. As it was not in accordance with the condition given in the advertisement. their applications were rejected. The rejection of the applications was challenged by the appellants before the single Judge on the ground that it was violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. According to the appellants, the insistence for production of the original certificates of PTC and SSC is impractical condition and is having no nexus with the merit of a candidate which alone should have been the criterion for selection. The learned single Judge disposed of Special Civil Application No. 6653 of 1998 by order dated 15.9.1998, which reads as under:

(2.) We heard Mrs. Ketty A. Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, and Mr.Prashant G. Desai, learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

(3.) The first contention urged by the appellants' counsel is that the direction of the learned single Judge to remit this case to the Committee is illegal in the sense that the Committee cannot consider the matter, as the appellants have challenged the rejection of the applications on the ground that it was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is contended that the Committee was appointed pursuant to the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 13.8.1998 in Special Civil Application No. 5218 of 1998 and allied matters and the Committee has no authority or power to consider the constitutional questions raised by the appellants. The common judgment and order dated 13.8.1998 in Special Civil Application No. 5218 of 1998 is produced before us, and, on going through the judgment, we find that certain objections raised by the petitioners against Vidhya Sahayak Scheme were directed to be considered by a Committee consisting of some higher officials. We do not think that the question now raised by the appellants is one of the matters covered by the subject involved in that case and hence it is not a matter to be considered by the Committee. Therefore, the direction of the learned single Judge to delegate the questions raised in the Special Civil Application to that Committee was not proper.