Tuesday, Apr 23, 2024
Advertisement
Premium

HC allows Kheda district panchayat to terminate 44 vidyasahayaks

In 2008, 64 persons in addition to the notified vacancies by the government were appointed as Vidyasahayaks.

44 vidyasahayaks produced sports certificates claiming to have played kabaddi to get additional 5 marks during their appointment back in 2008. ( File photo ) 44 vidyasahayaks produced sports certificates claiming to have played kabaddi to get additional 5 marks during their appointment back in 2008. ( File photo )

Although the “Pro-Kabaddi League” may be trying hard to add some glamour to this humble sport, vidyasahayaks (teaching assistants) working in state-run primary schools are in a fix.

The Gujarat High Court has permitted the Kheda district panchayat to complete the proceedings against these teachers, out of whom, 44 had produced sports certificates claiming to have played kabaddi to get additional 5 marks during their appointment back in 2008.

The division bench of justices Akil Kureshi and JB Pardiwala last week disposed of a case challenging the proceedings started by the district panchayat. In 2008, 64 persons in addition to the notified vacancies by the government were appointed as Vidyasahayaks, while granting an additional 5 marks to candidates who produced certificate of having played in various sports. The petitioners challenged that such weightage was impermissible as their sports certificates were not recognised by the state government.

Advertisement

The state government filed an affidavit before the court stating that “the certificates produced by the 44 candidates of having participated in kabaddi were issued by the Gujarat State Kabaddi Association were genuine and authentic. However, such association was not recognised by the state government. Therefore, the candidates holding such certificates were not eligible for additional weightage.”

The district panchayat also told the court that “the additional weightage given at the time of appointments was not in consonance with the rules and further that there is insufficient material on record suggesting the circumstances under which the additional 64 appointments were made.”

First uploaded on: 26-08-2014 at 03:58 IST
Latest Comment
Post Comment
Read Comments
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
close