Easing Educational Qualification To Prioritise Experience Can't Be Stretched To Dilute Criteria, State's Approach Anathema To Law: Gujarat HC

Striking down the appointment of a District Commandant, Home Guard (Class-I), in Narmada District, the Gujarat High Court observed that the appointee lacked the requisite educational qualifications.

In doing so the court said that the approach of the State in relaxing the educational qualification by giving primacy to the experience, stretching it to an extent that the criteria gets diluted, is an anathema to the Gujarat Home Guards Act.

The Court expressed its disapproval of the State's justification that experience alone suffices to override educational criteria, stating that such relaxation undermines statutory mandates and the responsibilities attached to the post.

A Division Bench of Justices A.S. Supehia and Gita Gopi presiding over the case, emphasised, "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 approach of the State Government would be anathema to the Statute as well as the duties and responsibilities assigned to a District Commandant."

As per the factual matrix of the case, the appellant was a Bachelor of Commerce graduate. He filed a petition challenging the selection of the respondent, who holds only a 9th Standard qualification, for the position of District Commandant. The position, offered on an honorarium basis, was advertised by the Office of the Director General of Civil Defence and Home Guards, to which both the appellant and the respondent applied. The appellant contended that the respondent's educational qualifications were inadequate for a post that required a graduate-level education, as stipulated by the government's guidelines.

While expounding on Section 2(1)(2) of the Gujarat Home Guards Act, 1947, the Court stated, “Thus, the State Government has appointed the respondent No.3, by ignoring the statutory provisions and also Clause-2 of the Guidelines dated 29.09.2018, which categorically mentions that the first preference shall be given to the candidate, whose minimum educational qualification is upto the level of graduation.”

“In the present case, the appellant, who is a graduate candidate and holding a Bachelor of Commerce Degree, is not selected however, respondent No.3, who is 9th Standard, has been selected on the post of District Commandant, Home Guards. Though, the appointment is on honorarium, the State Government cannot ignore its own guidelines and also the statutory provisions by appointing a person, who is 9th Standard,” the Court added.

The Court also noted that for the appointment of Home Guards on honorarium basis, their educational qualification prescribed is minimum 10th Standard, as per the provisions of 3(A)(kha) of the Circular dated September 23, 2018.

“Thus, the respondent No.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,” the Court pointed out.

The Court questioned the rationale behind the appointment, particularly in light of the fact that other personnel in the Home Guards department, including positions such as Armourer (Class-III) and Junior Staff Officer (Administration) Class-II, were recruited based on their educational qualifications, which exceed the 9th Standard level.

When queried by the Court, the Assistant Government Pleader defended the appointment by stating that the respondent was chosen for his prior experience as a District Commandant Home Guard, by invoking Clause-12 of the Guidelines dated September 29, 2018, which specifies that the State Government can appoint the District Commandant of Home Guards by ignoring the provisions of Section 2(1)(2) of the Gujarat Home Guards Act, 1947.

However, the Court was unconvinced by this reasoning. It noted that the State Government's decision to appoint a 9th Standard-qualified individual contradicted the very essence of the guidelines, which emphasised that first preference should be given to graduates.

The Court pointed out that while the appointment was made on an honorarium basis, the State could not simply disregard its own rules and the legal provisions that govern such appointments. As the Court observed, “... the State Government cannot ignore its own guidelines and also the statutory provisions by appointing a person, who is 9th Standard.”

The Court also noted that for appointments to honorarium-based roles in the Home Guard department, the prescribed minimum qualification is at least the 10th Standard, as per the Circular dated September 23, 2019. Therefore, the respondent's qualifications fell short not only for the District Commandant post but also for a general Home Guard role, further highlighting the disparity in the selection process.

The State Government's defence that the appointment was made in accordance with the law, based on the provisions of Clause-12, was also scrutinized by the Court. The Bench emphasized that such an interpretation of the law could lead to absurd outcomes, such as appointing someone with minimal educational qualifications to an important role like District Commandant, where supervisory responsibilities extend across an entire district.

As the Court stated, “It is 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.”

Thus, the Court set aside both the Single Judge's order and the respondent's appointment.

“In view of overall facts and circumstances of the case, the present appeal succeeds. The same is allowed with a costs of Rs.10,000/- imposed upon the State - authority. The same shall be paid to the appellant within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of writ of this judgement,” the Court directed.

Furthermore, the Court 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.

Case Title: Jayeshkumar Bhagwanbhai Pancholi v. State of Gujarat & Others

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj)

Click Here To Read Judgement