PATEL RAKESHKUMAR MAFATLAL vs STATE OF GUJARAT
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/LPA/904/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/06/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 904 of 2022
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION/2804/2021
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 905 of 2022
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2843 of 2021
=============================================
PATEL RAKESHKUMAR MAFATLAL
Versus
State OF GUJARAT & ORS.
=============================================
Appearance:
MR SP MAJMUDAR(3456) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
SHREYPRATAP S SINGH(9297) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
ADVANCE COPY SERVED TO Government PLEADER/PP for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
MR AD OZA(515) for the Respondent(s) No. 5
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 4,6
RUSHABH H MUNSHAW(8958) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
=============================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J. L. ODEDRA
Date : 18/06/2026
COMMON JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA)
1. The facts leading to the filling of these Letter Patent Appeals
are as follows.
1.1 On 11.5.2005, the respondent No.2-School, published an
advertisement calling for applications to fill up the four posts of
Assistant Teachers. One of the posts was for that of a Physical
Teacher, which required the applicants to possess a Bachelor's
degree and a Master's degree.
1.2 On 21.07.2005, that is, about two months thereafter, the
respondent no.2-School published another advertisement
calling for applications to the post of Assistant Teacher in
Page 1 of 8
Uploaded by YASH ARORA(HC02369) on Thu Jun 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jun 25 16:31:19 IST 2026
C/LPA/904/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/06/2026
Hindi. The requirement for this post was a Bachelor's degree in
Hindi and a Master's degree in Hindi, coupled with their ability
to teach Psychology. It's pertinent to State here, at that point
of time, the respondent No.2-School was not an aided School.
That is, it was not being given any grants by the State.
1.3. Pursuant to these advertisements, the appellants here
were appointed, after an interview was conducted. It may be
pertinent to State here that in the selection process, that is,
the conduct of an interview, the Official of the Secondary
Education Board was also a member, as could be seen from
the order of appointment issued to the appellants herein. In
other words, the selection of the appellants was made by a
Committee comprising of an Official of the Board also.
1.4. Pursuant to the selection process, the appellants were
appointed on 27.07.2005 and 22.08.2005 respectively on a
fixed pay. The tenure of appointment was initially fixed as five
years. In the month of January and February 2006, the staff
profile of the respondent No.2-School was also approved by the
Authorities.
1.5. In the year 2007, the Government had resolved to make
available grants to schools under Government Resolutions.
Accordingly, on 08.03.2007, the Government resolved to give a
grant to the respondent No.2-School, i.e., the State
Government resolved to provide salary grants to the
employees of the respondent No.2. For facilitating this, the
Government was required to regularize the appointments, and
in this process of regularization, the State had to necessarily
Page 2 of 8
Uploaded by YASH ARORA(HC02369) on Thu Jun 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jun 25 16:31:19 IST 2026
C/LPA/904/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/06/2026
review the appointments made by the respondent No.2-School.
1.6. After reviewing the qualifications of the appellants
herein, the State proceeded to reject their claims for
regularization. In respect of the case of Sri. Rakesh Kumar
Patel, who is appellant in LPA No. 904 of 2022, the State
Government rejected his case for approval, on the ground that
he did not possess a Master's degree as on the date of the
advertisement notification.
1.7. It may be pertinent to State here that the advertisement
notification, admittedly, stated that persons who had taken up
the Final Year Master's examination were also eligible to apply,
and it is not in dispute that the appellant had, in fact, passed
his Master's degree within 15 days of issue of the
advertisement and before he was appointed. This, therefore,
makes it clear that Sri Rakesh Kumar Patel was qualified to be
appointed as a Physical teacher. Consequentially, the refusal of
the State to regularize their appointments cannot be
sustained.
1.8. In so far as the appellant in LPA. No. 905 of 2022 is
concerned, this relates to the appointment of Sri Arvindkumar
Lavjibhai Chaudhary as a Hindi teacher. The State has refused
to approve this appointment on the ground that the
appointment did not adhere to the requirements of the
advertisement notification.
1.9. Being aggrieved by this rejection of their request for
being subjected to a salary grant, the appellants approached
Page 3 of 8
Uploaded by YASH ARORA(HC02369) on Thu Jun 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jun 25 16:31:19 IST 2026
C/LPA/904/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/06/2026
the Gujarat Education Services Tribunal. The Tribunal
concurred with the view of the Government that the
appointments of the appellant in LPA No. 904 of 2022 i.e., to
the post of Physical Teacher was incorrect as he did not
possess a Masters Degree as on the date of the advertisement
and that of the appellant in LPA No. 905 of 2022 i.e., to the
post of Hindi teacher did not adhere to the requirements of the
advertisement notification in as much as they did not have the
qualification to teach Psychology and the Tribunal accordingly
dismissed the appeal of both the appellants.
1.10. The appellants, being aggrieved, filed a Writ Petition, and
the learned Single Judge, by the impugned order, has
confirmed the order of the Tribunal and, as a consequence, the
present appeals have been filed.
2. The principal question to be considered in this case is as
to whether, the State was justified in coming to the conclusion
that the appellants were not duly qualified, so as to be entitled
to a salary grant.
3. The State has taken the view that the appointment of the
appellants could not be sustained, since the appellant in LPA
No. 904 of 2022 who had been appointed as a Physical
Teacher did not have a Masters Degree as on the date of the
advertisement and the appellant in LPA No. 905 of 2022 who
had been appointed so as a Hindi teacher, did not the
qualification to teach Psychology.
4. It cannot be in dispute, and it is also not the case of the
Page 4 of 8
Uploaded by YASH ARORA(HC02369) on Thu Jun 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jun 25 16:31:19 IST 2026
C/LPA/904/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/06/2026
Government under the impugned orders, that the educational
qualifications possessed by the appellants were inadequate.
5. It is to be stated here that the appellant in LPA No. 904 of
2022 in order to be appointed as a Physical Teacher was
required to possess a Masters Degree. Admittedly, the
advertisement did state that persons who were studying in the
Final Year of the Masters course could apply. The appellant in
LPA No. 904 of 2022 was, in fact, studying in the Final year and
also passed the exams within 15 days of the advertisement
and thus secured the Masters Degree. This, therefore,
establishes that he possessed the education qualification even
before he had been appointed and as a consequence, the
stand of the State was unsustainable.
6. In respect of the appellant in LPA No. 905 of 2022, who
had been appointed as a Hindi teacher, it is to be stated here
that the appellant did possess a B.A. degree in Hindi and also a
Master's degree in Hindi. This would obviously satisfy the basic
requirement of the qualifications prescribed for an Assistant
Teacher in Hindi.
7. Arguments were, however, advanced by the learned
A.G.P. that the advertisement notification indicated that the
candidate should have a Bachelor's degree in Hindi and a
Master's degree in Hindi, coupled with the ability to teach
Psychology. He submitted that the appellant did not have any
educational qualification in Psychology, and, therefore, his
appointment was invalid.
Page 5 of 8
Uploaded by YASH ARORA(HC02369) on Thu Jun 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jun 25 16:31:19 IST 2026
C/LPA/904/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/06/2026
8. Learned counsel for the Hindi Teacher, on the other hand,
submitted that, as a matter of fact, the appellant had studied
Psychology in the first two years of their Bachelor's degree,
and, therefore, they were capable of imparting education even
in Psychology.
9. In our view, this argument of the A.G.P. would be of no
relevance, since, fundamentally, the appellant was to teach
Hindi, and his ability to teach Psychology in addition to Hindi
was a superfluous necessity, having no bearing to his actual
discharge of work. Thus, the entire argument submitted in this
line cannot merit any acceptance or consideration.
10. As far as the qualifications of both the appellants for
being recruited, the appointment order produced along with
the Writ Petition indicates that the appellants were selected
pursuant to the decision of a Selection Committee which
comprised of three employees of the School and more
importantly, an employee of the Secondary Education Board. In
other words, a State Government Official was a part of the
Committee which selected the appellants to the post of
Physical Teacher and Assistant Teacher Hindi. This fact, by
itself, presupposes that the qualifications of the appellants
were scrutinized thoroughly, and only after the Committee was
satisfied, were they selected.
11. In the light of the fact that the employee of the Education
Board was the party to the selection, it cannot be urged by the
State that the appellants are not educationally qualified. We
may also notice that it is not in dispute that the appellants did
Page 6 of 8
Uploaded by YASH ARORA(HC02369) on Thu Jun 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jun 25 16:31:19 IST 2026
C/LPA/904/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/06/2026
possess the necessary Bachelor's degree and also Master's
degree in the relevant subjects and they were, therefore,
qualified to be Assistant Teachers.
12. The Tribunal, as well as the learned Single Judge, have
despite this glaring fact, basically proceeded on the footing
that the selection of the appellants was not in adherence to
the requirements of the advertisement.
13. As already pointed out, what was to be considered was as
to whether the appellant in LPA No. 904 of 2022 was studying
in the Final year of a Masters Degree Course and had a
Masters Degree as on the date of his appointment order and
whether the appellant in LPA No. 905 of 2022 was qualified to
be an Assistant Teacher in Hindi. If this fundamental
requirement of possessing the requisite qualifications to be an
Assistant Teacher was satisfied, it is obvious that the
appointment of the appellants cannot be doubted.
14. We are, therefore, of the view that the order of the
Government refusing to regularize the services of the appellant
and subjecting them to a salary grant and its affirmation by the
Tribunal and the learned Single Judge, cannot be sustained and
they are, accordingly, set aside. The Government is directed to
accept the approval of the appellants as Assistant Teachers,
and subject them to a salary grant.
15. We would, however, have to balance the equities, and, in
our view, it would be appropriate that the appellants would be
entitled for the salary grant only from the date they
Page 7 of 8
Uploaded by YASH ARORA(HC02369) on Thu Jun 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jun 25 16:31:19 IST 2026
C/LPA/904/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/06/2026
approached this court, i.e., in 2021. This course of action is
being adopted, since a direction to the State to regularize their
appointment from 2012 would be casting a huge burden on the
State.
16. Learned counsel for the appellants, on instructions from
the appellants, who are present in the court, also submits that
the appellants would readily give up their claim for the regular
salary up to 2021.
17. In the light of the above, the State Government is
directed to regularize the appointment of the appellants with
effect from 2021. However, for the purpose of computing all
other benefits, including retiral benefits, the approval to the
appointments of the appellant shall relate back to the date on
which the State Government rejected the claim for approval. It
is made clear that, apart from the financial benefits from 2021,
the appellants will not be entitled to any other financial
benefits as arrears.
18. It is also clarified that the appellants would be deemed to
be regularized with effect from 2012 for the purpose of
terminal benefits.
19. The petition is allowed accordingly. Notice is discharged.
(N.S.SANJAY GOWDA,J)
(J. L. ODEDRA, J)
YASH ARORA
Page 8 of 8
Uploaded by YASH ARORA(HC02369) on Thu Jun 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jun 25 16:31:19 IST 2026