Gujarat High Court: In an intra-court appeal against a decision of the Single Judge rejecting the appellant’s petition against the appointment of respondent- 3 as a District Commandant, Home Guard, (Class-I) on the basis of his experience only who studied only till 9th Standard, ignoring the other candidates such as the present appellant who possess a Bachelor of Commerce Degree, the Division Bench comprising of AS Supehia and Gita Gopi, JJ. noted that the State bypassed the minimum qualification criteria, hence, set aside the respondent-3’s appointment and directed the State to appoint the appellant to the post of District Commandant of Home Guards, or to undertake necessary recruitment in Narmada District for appointment to the post of District Commandant.
The present appellant pursuant to the advertisement applied for the post of District Commandant, Home Guard (Class-I), District Narmada. The respondent-3 was appointed vide a Notification dated 05-03-2024. The original petitioner assailed the appointment of the respondent-3 to the post of District Commandant on honorarium basis at Narmada District on the ground of lack of educational qualification of respondent- 3 who studied till 9th Standard.
The Court noted that to the query that what weighed upon the State in appointing the respondent- 3, on the post of District Commandant, when the personnel such as Home Guards, Armourer (Class-III), Junior Staff Officer (Administration) Class-II and Head Clerk (Class-III) are recruited on the basis of their educational qualifications, which is more than 9th Standard; the State submitted that he was appointed on the basis of his experience as a District Commandant, Home Guard, by invoking Clause-12 of the Guidelines dated 29-09-2018
,
The Court said that the State Government appointed the Respondent- 3, by ignoring the Section 2(1)(2) of the Gujarat Home Guards Act, 1947 and also Clause-2 of the Guidelines dated 29-09-2018, which categorically mentioned that the first preference shall be given to the candidate, whose minimum educational qualification is upto the level of graduation. The Court stated that in the present case, the appellant, a graduate candidate holding a Bachelor of Commerce Degree, was not selected however, respondent- 3, a 9th Standard pass out was selected on the post of District Commandant, Home Guards. The Court also pointed out that for the appointment of Home Guards on honorarium basis, their minimum educational qualification prescribed is 10th Standard, as per the Circular dated 23-09-2019. Thus, the respondent- 3, who is appointed as a District Commandant, Home Guards, possesses lesser qualification than a Home Guard, who is also appointed on an honorarium basis. Though the appointment is on honorarium, the State Government cannot ignore its own guidelines and the statutory provisions by appointing a person, who has studied till 9th Standard.
Hence, the Court stated that the State Government undertook the necessary exercise for filling up the post of District Commandant, Home Guards (Class-I) in various districts by publishing an advertisement and it was shocking to note that the Clause-12 directs that the appointment to the post of District Commandant can be made by ignoring the statutory provisions of the Gujarat Home Guards Act, 1947. The Court said that there is no provision in the guidelines dated 29-09-2018, which mentions that a candidate who has an experience on working on such post will be given preference, and the educational qualification of graduation will be relaxed to the extent that it can be below Class-III or Class-IV employees. Therefore, the Court quashed and set aside the appointment of respondent-3. The Court also set aside the Single Judge’s decision.
The State Government has very conveniently ignored that the respondent no.3 will be supervising the duties of Home Guards, for whom the State Government has prescribed minimum qualification of 10th Standard.
The Court laid down that the relaxation in educational qualification by giving primacy to the experience cannot be stretched to such an extent that the criterion of educational qualification gets diluted. Such an approach by the State Government would be anathema to the Statute as well as the duties and responsibilities assigned to a District Commandant. The Court also directed the State to pay costs of Rs. 10,000/- to the appellant.
[Jayeshkumar Bhagwanbhai Pancholi v. State of Gujarat, 2024 SCC OnLine Guj 4057, decided on: 29-10-2024]
