D.N. Patel, J. - (1.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the present petition has been preferred mainly for getting an appointment as Para -Teacher with the respondent -State and the respondent -State has appointed respondent Nos. 6 and 7 as Para -Teachers, though they are not duly qualified. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the qualification, required for appointment as Para -Teacher in a Middle School, is Graduate whereas respondent Nos. 6 and 7 are not Graduates in any of the faculties and hence their appointment is illegal, in the eyes of law.
(2.) I have heard learned Counsel for the respondent -State, who has submitted that there is no illegality in the appointment of respondent Nos. 6 and 7 for the post of Para -Teacher, because they are appointed for Class I to V, for which the required qualification is Intermediate, which respondent Nos. 6 and 7 are already having. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent -State that the present petitioner is not legally qualified to be appointed as Para -Teacher and there is no procedural lapses in the selection and appointment of respondent Nos. 6 and 7 and they have already been selected as Para -Teachers in the year, 2007 and they are also working as Para -Teachers in the concerned school, to the satisfaction of the respondent -State. I have also heard learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 6 and 7, who has submitted that a detailed counter affidavit has been filed, wherein, it has been stated that respondent Nos. 6 and 7 are Graduates. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 6 and 7 that they are duly qualified to be appointed, as Para -Teachers in any school for Primary classes i.e. for Class I to V. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 6 and 7 that their appointment letters have been annexed at Annexure C/1 to the counter affidavit, filed by respondent Nos. 6 and 7, which is dated 26 July, 2007, whereby, it is clear that they have been appointed for Class I to V. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 6 and 7 that it has been stated in paragraph No. 16 of the counter affidavit that the petitioner is Matriculate and has never applied for appointment to the post of Para -Teacher and this paragraph No. 16 has not been denied by filing any affidavit by the petitioner, though this counter affidavit was filed and served upon the petitioner in July, 2008. Thus, the petitioner has no legal vested right to be appointed as Para -Teacher, as he is not qualified for it whereas respondent Nos. 6 and 7 are duly qualified for appointment as Para -Teacher.
(3.) HAVING heard learned Counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that there is no substance in this writ petition, mainly for the following facts and reasons: (i) It is stated by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that he is duly qualified for appointment to the post of Para -Teacher, but, there is no such statement in whole of the petitioner. On the contrary, in the counter affidavit, filed by respondent Nos. 6 and 7, which has been served upon the petitioner in July, 2008, especially paragraph No. 16 thereof, it is clearly stated that the petitioner is Matriculate and has never applied for appointment to the post of Para -Teacher. Thus, there is clear allegation against the petitioner, but, this averment, made by respondent Nos. 6 and 7 in the counter affidavit, has not been denied so far by the petitioner. (ii) From Annexure C/1 to the counter affidavit, filed by respondent Nos. 6 and 7, it appears that respondent Nos. 6 and 7 were appointed as Para -Teacher for Class I to V for which the required qualification is Intermediate, which respondent Nos. 6 and 7 are already possessing, even as per the submission made by the learned Counsel for the State. (iii) From the facts of the case, it appears that there is no procedural defect in appointment of respondent Nos. 6 and 7. Upon selection by Gram Sabha Samiti, their appointment was ratified by the Government and respondent Nos. 6 and 7 have been appointed as Para -Teacher in Primary Glass i.e. Class I to V from July, 2007 and they are also working as Primary Teachers to the satisfaction of the State.;