JUDGMENT
Bhawani Singh, J.
1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the
order of Single Judge dated February 25, 2003 passed in
Special Civil Application No.10950 of 2002
———————————————————
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see
the judgment?
whereby, the claim of the appellant Ms.Jaya Ghanshyamdas
Chellani for her appointment in Kandla Port Trust [“KPT”
for short ] has been rejected.
2. The KPT issued public advertisement [ Annexure-A ]
dated 3.8.2001 inviting applications for the post of
Secondary Teacher [Science] with Gujarati Medium. The
appellant applied for this post. She was called for
interview [Annexure-B] on 1.2.2002 and appointed vide
order dated 15.2.2002 [ Annexure-C ]. She has been asked
to join by 1.3.2002 at 10.00 a.m.. Accordingly, the
appellant resigned from the post of Teacher from
Excelsion Model School, Adipur, vide resignation letter
dated 19.2.2002 [Annexure-D]. She has clearly mentioned
in the said letter of resignation that she has been
appointed in Kandla Port Trust, therefore, she is unable
to work as Assistant Teacher in the institution and
therefore, her request for resignation and permission to
join in KPT be granted.
3. The appellant went to join with the KPT on 19.2.2002.
She could not join since she was asked to come on
25.2.2002. On that date also, she was not allowed to
join and asked to come on 1.3.2002 [ Annexure-E]. On
1.3.2002 she submitted joining report at 10.00 a.m..
However, her letter / correspondence to KPT indicates
that she was not allowed to work. The appellant submits
that she is qualified. She has been selected. She has
been appointed. She has submitted joining report.
Therefore, the action of the respondents is thoroughly
unreasonable, arbitrary and so KPT be directed to allow
to resume the duty. After serving a legal notice dated
13.9.2002, Special Civil Application No.10950 / 2002 has
been filed. From various documents available on the
file, it transpires that KPT sought clarification from
the office of the District Education Officer [ “DEO” for
short ] whether the appellant was qualified. This
impression can be gathered from communication dated
1.10.2002 from the Secretary, KPT to DEO. Substance of
the reply by DEO is that the KPT school is non aided
Government recognised school, therefore, independent to
deal with the matter. This stand is clearly stated in
the reply filed by the State Government. With the
aforesaid background, we turn to examine the matter.
First question for consideration is, whether appellant is
qualified. Perusal of advertisement dated 3.8.2001
[Annexure-A] clearly stipulates that a candidate should
be [a] fully trained graduate of a recognised University;
[b] candidate should be B.Sc.,B.Ed with science and
mathematics [Gujarati Medium], [c] candidate should have
atleast five years teaching experience in Government
recognised school. The appellant is fully trained
graduate of recognised university. She is B.Sc., B.Ed.
with science and mathematics [Gujarati Medium]. She has
five years teaching experience in Government recognised
school since the school in which the appellant taught, is
a Government recognised school. The contention that the
appellant should have teaching experience with B.Ed.
degree for five years and she should have taught in
higher secondary school, cannot be accepted since this
cannot spelt out of the requirement of qualification and
experience stipulated in the advertisement. The
requirement has three parameters mentioned as explained
hereinabove. Therefore, we have no hesitation in coming
to the conclusion that appellant is qualified.
Therefore, she should have been allowed to resume the
work. There is another facet of the question, KPT was
sure about her qualification at the time of selection,
therefore, she was selected by the Committee which
included DEO from the State Government. Therefore, there
was no reason for seeking clarification from the DEO /
State Government whether appellant was qualified as per
the qualification. The selection committee KPT has not
committed any fault with regard to its decision selecting
appellant. A perusal of candidates’ chart prepared, on
which the candidates were interviewed, also plainly and
clearly shows that appellant is meritorious candidate
possessing extra qualifications of NCC, Guide and Scout,
drawing and Computer knowledge, which, no other
candidate, atleast to that extent, possessed such
qualification. Therefore, there should not have any
doubt with respect to her merits and the selection
committee had also no doubt as to merits and
qualification of the appellant. Therefore, the appellant
ought to have been permitted to resume the work. With
regard to experience, it is contended that appellant may
lack experience of five years. But candidates’ chart
clearly mentions that she has teaching experience for
five years and two months and it is not necessary that it
should be with B.Ed. throughout and in secondary school
for 5 years. It can be from any school and duration
being 5 years. Therefore, much cannot be said on this
point by KPT.
4. It was submitted that appellant did not produce her
relieving order from the previous employer, therefore,
she could not resume the duty. Of course, this is not an
essential requirement for joining the duty. This is not
mandatory requirement before joining the duty, nor it was
at any stage insisted. When submission was raised by the
learned counsel for the KPT, with a view to understand
whether there could be some difficulty on this aspect,
learned counsel for the appellant was asked to file
relieving certificate from the previous institution in
which the appellant was serving. It is filed. The same
is dated 18.7.2003, which stipulates that resignation of
the appellant dated 19.2.2002 from the post of Assistant
Teacher in the primary section was accepted and she was
already relieved from service with effect from 19.2.2002.
5. Accordingly, we find that the appellant is qualified,
she is rightly selected and appointed but not allowed to
resume work though she had submitted joining report. The
KPT has treated the appellant unjustly and unreasonably.
The post is vacant. Learned counsel for the appellant
prays that KPT be directed to pay salary for two years to
the appellant. However, counsel for the respondents
opposes the prayer on the ground that KPT is public body
and ultimately the burden fall on public exchequer.
Considering that she has been unjustly treated, not
allowed to work, deprived of the post, salary and other
benefits attached to it, KPT is directed to pay the
appellant, salary and other allowance from 19.2.2002 to
5.2.2004.
The appeal is, therefore, allowed. Judgment of
Single Judge is set aside. The KPT is directed to allow
the appellant to join/ resume work and pay her the cost
of Rs.1,000/= within a week.
Prayer of respondent for stay of order is
rejected.