Back
2002 Supreme(Guj) 657
Gujarat High Court
Judgename :Y.B.BHATT
BHAGWANBHAI RAGHUNATHBHAI CHAUDDHARY - Appellant
Versus
DISTRICT PRIMARY EDUCATION OFFICER - Respondent
S.C.A. 12467 of 2000
Decided On : 09/05/2002
Headnote:
Constitution of India -Article 227,14 -Petitioner challenges the orders passed by the statutory authorities in the performance of their quasi-judicial functions. 1. 2. BEFORE proceeding further on the merits of the matter it is desirable to keep in mind the observations of the Supreme Court in the case (2001 (4) SCC 478) on the question of the scope and ambit of the jurisdiction of this Court in the context of the powers which this Court may exercise. Supreme Court has observed in the aforesaid cases that the High Court, while examining a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, cannot reappreciate the evidence and cannot disturb the findings of fact recorded by the courts below except where the same are perverse, and even errors of law cannot be corrected. Suffice it to say that this Court cannot enter into the quality of the decisions rendered; at best, it may only examine the decision making process adopted by the for a below. petitioner herein was appointed as an Assistant Teacher after going through the selection procedure. Admittedly, the selection procedure consist only of evaluation of qualifications. This evaluation is on the basis of documents submitted by the applicants for the purpose of selection and appointment. 2. 1 at the time of making the application for selection and appointment, the petitioner had submitted documents showing qualifications possessed by him. petitioner claimed that he held a Diploma in Tailoring and Cutting, and that he had also passed the new S. S. C. examination. 2. 2 it is pertinent to note that the petitioners qualification supported by the certificate that he has been granted a Diploma in Tailoring and Cutting, was in fact submitted, that this is not in dispute on either side. 2. 3 however, at the time of application and at the time of selection, the applicant had not submitted the relevant certificate showing that he has passed the new S. S. C. examination. It is common ground that even thereafter, this certificate has not been produced at any stage till the present. 2. 4 however, what the petitioner did produce was a mark sheet of the marks obtained by him in the S. S. C. examination. It is this mark sheet which is the cause and the basis of the present controversy before the Court -Held the petitioner also submitted on the basis of paragraph 8 (iv) of the petition that his selection must be deemed to have been on the basis of 426 marks, inasmuch as that was the mark sheet actually submitted by him at the time of application/selection stage. 12. 1 this submission supposed to have been made in the petition and sought to be amplified during the arguments, is sought to be supported by Annexures h and i to the petition, which are letters calling upon the District Primary Education Officer to furnish the petitioner with the record pertaining to his application and selection, including the true copies of the certificates taken into consideration. This aspect has already been dealt with hereinabove. To reiterate, had the petitioner submitted a mark sheet containing 426 marks, he would not have been eligible for selection/appointment. premises aforesaid, none of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are sustainable, and consequently, there is no substance in he present petition. This petition is, therefore, dismissed and rule is discharged with costs -Petition is Dismissed.
( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, though styled as a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, for enforcement of fundamental rights under Article 14 of the Constitution. 1. 1 the petitioner herein challenges the order of termination of service of the petitioner passed by the District Primary Education Officer, ultimately confirmed in appeal by the Director of Primary Education. Obviously, therefore, this is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution since the petitioner challenges the orders passed by the statutory authorities in the performance of their quasi-judicial functions. 1. 2. BEFORE proceeding further on the merits of the matter it is desirable to keep in mind the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of (i) Mohmmad Yunus Vs. Mohammad Mustaqim (AIR 1984 SC 38, (ii) Khalil Ahmed Bashir Vs. Tufelhussein S. Sarangpurwala (AIR 1988 SC 184) and (iii) Ashok Kumar Vs. Sita Ram (2001 (4) SCC 478) on the question of the scope and ambit of the jurisdiction of this Court in the context of the powers which this Court may exercise under Article 227 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has observed in the aforesaid cases that the High Court, while examining a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, cannot reappreciate the evidence and cannot disturb the findings of fact recorded by the courts below except where the same are perverse, and even errors of law cannot be corrected. Suffice it to say that this Court cannot enter into the quality of the decisions rendered; at best, it may only examine the decision making process adopted by the fora below.
( 2 ) THE petitioner herein was appointed as an Assistant Teacher after going through the selection procedure. Admittedly, the selection procedure consist only of evaluation of qualifications. This evaluation is on the basis of documents submitted by the applicants for the purpose of selection and appointment. 2. 1 at the time of making the application for selection and appointment, the petitioner had submitted documents showing qualifications possessed by him. The petitioner claimed that he held a Diploma in Tailoring and Cutting, and that he had also passed the new S. S. C. examination. 2. 2 it is pertinent to note that the petitioners qualification supported by the certificate that he has been granted a Diploma in Tailoring and Cutting, was in fact submitted, that this is not in dispute on either side. 2. 3 however, at the time of application and at the time of selection, the applicant had not submitted the relevant certificate showing that he has passed the new S. S. C. examination. It is common ground that even thereafter, this certificate has not been produced at any stage till the present. 2. 4 however, what the petitioner did produce was a mark sheet of the marks obtained by him in the S. S. C. examination. It is this mark sheet which is the cause and the basis of the present controversy before the Court.
( 3 ) THE concerned authority, after assessing the qualifications claimed and asserted by the petitioner, and as supported by the documents produced by him at the relevant point of time as mentioned hereinabove, appointed the petitioner as an Assistant Teacher. It is pertinent to note that as 30 appointments were made on the basis of the internal evaluation based on the qualifications possessed by the candidates, the petitioner was also appointed, being placed at Sl. No. 26 in the list of selected candidates. The appointment was made on 15/11/1986.
( 4 ) IT appears that thereafter the respondent authorities received complaints that the petitioner has obtained the selection and appointment on the basis of fraudulent certificates and that the petitioner had in fact not passed the S. S. C. examination at all. Consequently, the petitioner was directed in writing to remain present with the relevant certificates for the purpose of verification of the same.
( 5 ) THE petitioner has contended
