C/SCA/11119/2017 ORDER DATED: 28/07/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11119 of 2017 ========================================================== VASANT KUMAR RAVJIBHAI CHADASANIYA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. ========================================================== Appearance: MR RV DESHMUKH(300) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MS KRISHNA D DESAI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 RULE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA Date : 28/07/2025 ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for a declaration that the action of the District Education Officer (DEO) in holding the Letter of Recommendation to the petitioner for appointment as Sikshan Sahayak (Assistant Teacher) in Grant-in-Aid Secondary School is illegal and arbitrary and to issue a direction to the DEO to issue a letter of recommendation forthwith by declaring him to be eligible for appointment to the post of Sikshan Sahayak (Assistant Teacher) in Surendrangar district. 2. The simple case of the petitioner is that pursuant to the advertisement calling for applications, for filling up posts of Sikshan Sahayak in Science and Maths, he had made an application and along with his application, he had furnished the testimonials to the effect that he had degree in Science (B.Sc.), degree in Education (B.Ed.) and also Master degree in Science C/SCA/11119/2017 ORDER DATED: 28/07/2025 (M.Sc.). He contends that the respondents have committed an error in disregarding his Master degree in Science, which is the postgraduate degree, on the ground that he had obtained the Master Degree in the subject of Environment Science and the same could not be therefore, considered as postgraduate decree in Science. It is his contention that if this postgraduate degree that he had obtained in Science is considered, he ought to have been appointed in the first round of selection and he would consequently gained the seniority and other benefits flowing from such selection in the first round itself. He basically contends that he is required to be appointed with effect from 13.12.2016 when the candidates with postgraduate degree in Science were selected. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the notification basically stated that if a person had a postgraduate degree in Science, he was entitled for 10% of marks obtained as weightage and this benefit was not extended to him on the ground that he had a Master degree in Science in the subject of Environmental Science. It is contended that though the Selection Committee had accepted his postgraduate degree in Science as being a valid postgraduate degree, the DEO has disregarded this grant of 10% of marks which had caused him grave prejudice. It is further the case of the petitioner that on filing of this writ petition, in the order to save the prospect of securing a job, he had agreed before this Court that his case may be considered without reference to the postgraduate C/SCA/11119/2017 ORDER DATED: 28/07/2025 degree since he would even then be eligible for being selected. The learned counsel points out that on the basis of this concession, the petitioner had in fact been selected on the premise that he had only degree in Science and not postgraduate Master’s degree in Science. But, notwithstanding this fact, he would be entitled to be considered as appointed as a candidate who possessed the postgraduate Master’s degree in Science. The learned counsel submits that if this benefit is extended, the petitioner would get seniority from the date on which the candidates with the postgraduate degree in Science were appointed, i.e. 13.12.2016, and all consequential benefits should also be granted to him. 4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader, on the other hand, seeks to contend that a Master degree in Environment Science cannot be considered as equivalent to the Master degree in Science and, therefore, the decision of the DEO in disregarding the 10% weightage could not be found fault with. She also submits that the petitioner by agreeing to be selected on the basis that he only possessed a degree in Science would now be dis-entitled to put forth his contention that he should also get the benefit of a postgraduate degree. 5. This Court while entertaining the writ petition passed an order in the following terms: “Heard learned advocate Mr. R. V. Deshmukh for the petitioner and learned AGP Mr. Rohan Yagnik for respondent – State. Considering the facts and circumstances emerging C/SCA/11119/2017 ORDER DATED: 28/07/2025 from record when petitioner has concealed that he is ready and willing to join his services at appropriate place as if his degree of M. Sc in Environmental Science is not included in the merits. Based upon such disclosure, respondent may select the proper place for the petitioner. However, it is made clear that such posing will not come in way of the petitioner in asking for suitable post of posing. Respondent shall do the needful for the posting as aforesaid. Such exercise should be completed within three weeks from the date of receipt of writ of this order. Rule returnable on 05.12.2017. Learned AGP waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent – State. Direct service is permitted.” 6. As could be seen from the above, the petitioner had conceded that he was ready and willing to join his services at the appropriate place as if his degree in M.Sc. In Environmental Science was not included in the merits (by inadvertence instead of ‘conceded’, it has been typed as ‘concealed’). This order basically states that the petitioner in order to ensure that he was at least selected on the premise that he was a holder of basic Degree in Science and has conceded that his Master’s degree need not be considered for the purpose of selection. This concession given by the petitioner at the time of filing the petition cannot be held against the petitioner to contend that he has given up his right that he possessed the Master degree in Science. The argument of the learned Assistant Government Pleader is, therefore, rejected. 7. The petitioner contends that he possessed not only a degree in Science but also a postgraduate Master’s degree in Science. It is admitted that the petitioner did possess a postgraduate Master’s degree in Science, but in the subject of C/SCA/11119/2017 ORDER DATED: 28/07/2025 Environmental Science. The State on the other hand contends that the petitioner may have possessed a postgraduate Master’s degree in Environmental Science but that cannot be considered as equivalent to a Master’s degree in Science. 8. In fact, the specific contention advanced by the State in its reply is as follows: “15. At this juncture it is pertinent to mentioned that the petitioner had applied for the post of Sikhshan Sahayak based on the details submitted by the petitioner the online application the selection committee formally recommended the name for district camp, subject to fulfilling the other criteria as under the recruitment rules as well as the advertisement, provisional. I respectfully state and submit that petitioner had passed B.Sc in Chemistry and M.Sc in Environment Science. in the School Selection camp after scrutiny of the educational qualification of the petitioner it is found that the petitioner has not possessing the equivalent subject of Maths Science therefore he cannot get the benefit of additional marks of M.Sc degree. After deducting the marks of M.Sc degree the merit of the petitioner has fall down, which is as under: No. Requisite Qualifications Petitioner’s Qualification Weighed Mark Obtained Marks aftr deducting M.Sc. Degree 1 Graduation Degree in concerned subject B.Sc. With Chemistry (373/700) 10%. 5.33 5.33 2 Post- Graduation Degree in concerned subject (if possesses) M.Sc. With Environment Science (1509/2400) 10%. 6.29 0 3 Graduation Degree in Professional subject B.Ed. (911/1100) 5%. 4.14 4.14 4 Post- Graduation Degree in Professional Subject Not possess 5%. 0 0 C/SCA/11119/2017 ORDER DATED: 28/07/2025 5 TAT Exam (concerned subject) TAT Exam (concerned subject) (161/250) 70%. 45.08 45.08 TOTAL TOTAL 100 60.84 54.55 The petitioner has filled up post graduation degree column as M.Sc with Maths-Science hence he had got the high merit i.e 60.86. Subsequently, District Education Officer, had called the present petitioner in camp for selection of School and during the verification of document, it is found that the present petitioner has filled the marks of M.Sc with Maths-Science in column instead of M.Sc with Environment Science but as per the rules the Environment Science is not equivalent subject of Maths Science and. Therefore, the petitioner had not given the chance of selection of School.” 9. As could be seen from the above, the State basically states that the petitioner possessed a Master’s Degree in Environmental Science and, therefore, that cannot be given due weightage. The petitioner has produced his Master degree in Science at page-40 of the writ petition, from which it could be seen that the University has specifically conferred the degree of Master of Science on the petitioner. It is no-doubt true that the Master of Science is in the subject of Environmental Science, but since the University has considered even a Master Degree in Environmental Science to be a Master’s Degree in Science, the respondents would not be right in contending that this cannot be considered as a Master’s Degree in Science. 10. It is to be stated here that it is for the University to decide as to what is the Master degree which it was conferring upon the students and if the University states that it was conferring the Master’s degree of Science on the petitioner, the same will C/SCA/11119/2017 ORDER DATED: 28/07/2025 have to be accepted by the respondents. It, therefore, follows that the respondents would be bound to consider the case of the petitioner as appointment as a person who possessed the degree not only in Science but also a Master’s Degree in Science. As a further consequence, he would be entitled for being considered to be appointed on the day when the other candidates were appointed on the premise that they obtained the postgraduate degree in M.Sc. It the case of the petitioner that this date would be 13.12.2016. The authorities shall verify and ensure that the petitioner’s date of appointment would be the same as that of the candidate who was selected on the premise that he possessed the Master’s degree in Science. 11. The petitioner would be entitled to all such benefits that flow from such appointment including that of seniority and the completion of necessary number of years of service for the purpose of regularizing his service. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, fairly submits that the petitioner would not claim any financial benefits accruing out of such an order and he would be satisfied only if seniority is conferred upon him. 13. In the light of the above, it is made clear that the petitioner should be considered as having been appointed in the category of the employees who possessed the postgraduate degree in the Master of Science but he shall not be entitled for any financial benefits in the form of arrears of pay that flow C/SCA/11119/2017 ORDER DATED: 28/07/2025 from such an order. The writ petition is accordingly DISPOSED OF. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Sd/- (NSSG,J) OMKAR Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: OMKAR CHHAGANLAL MAHAWAR(HC00201), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 29/07/2025 17:44:42