Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
VINEET KOTHARI, B.N. KARIA, JJ.
Rami Gaurangkumar Yagneshkumar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
R/Letters Patent Appeal No. 522 of 2013, In R/Special Civil Application No. 15742 of 2012
Decided on : 30-06-2021
Constitution Of India,1950 - Factual matrix -Condition precedent for Appointment - Qualification for purpose of selection - Appellant has invited the attention of Court towards advertisement and argued that it is clear that person who does not possess qualification of NET/SLAT or Ph.D - As required underUGC norms and also applied for post in question as provided in advertisement within five years from date of appointment, he can acquire NET/SLAT or Ph.D. and his case can be considered for appointment on regular basis - It is further submitted that a person who does not hold NET/SLAT or Ph.D. not only can apply and participate for selection but can get selected on merits for which he will get time of five years to obtain qualification of NET/SLAT or Ph.D - It is further submitted that in present case, Appellant had applied in response to advertisement and was able to get his Ph.D. degree on date of interview which was held on - That, interview committee rightly considered qualification of Appellant Ph.D. degree and did give due credit for Ph.D as he was the only candidate selected –
Finding of the Court:
, Considering factual aspect as well as circumstances arose from record, we are of opinion that Appellant was candidate, who had fulfilled qualification and eligibility criteria on date, he was offered his candidature in advertisement itself. Candidates were were allowed to pass NET/SLAT of Ph.D. examination after selection within a period of Five years - Court Interview Committee also, representative of State Government was present and upon due verification, Appellant was duly selected. - ICourt was not open for the State to go behind the clarification and interpretation of Government Resolution while passing order passed by original Respondent No.2. Admittedly, Appellant had fulfilled qualification and eligibility criteria on date, he offered his candidature. Findings of learned Single Judge, with due respect, that Appellant had no right to contend that subsequently obtained qualification in any way save his selection, was contrary to law as well as record - Case and record,Court are of opinion that Judgment and Order passed by learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application is required to be quashed and set aside –
Result: Appeal is hereby allowed
JUDGMENT :
B.N. KARIA, J.
1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 30.01.2013 passed in Special Civil Application No. 15742 of 2012-Rami Gaurangkumar Yagneshkumar v. State of Gujarat by the learned Single Judge.
2. The factual matrix involved in the present Appeal can briefly be stated as under:
2.1 On 24.12.2009, an advertisement for the post of Adhyapak Sahayak was published in the daily newspaper Sandesh, Patan and in Divya Bhaskar newspaper in other Districts as well as by North Gujarat Education Society, Mumbai in pursuance of NOC granted by Higher Education Commissioner. That, North Gujarat Education Society was running two Colleges, Grant-in-Aid, namely (1) Sheth M. N. Science College, Patan and (2) Smt. T.S. R. Commerce College, Patan for the purpose of P.T.I. Adhyapak Sahayak in both the Colleges, the advertisement was published mentioning that the candidate must clear NET/SLAT or Ph.D. within 5 years from the date of selection. That, the original Petitioner had applied for the post of P.T.I. Adhyapak Sahayak in pursuance of the said advertisement, as he was possessing qualification of Master of Physical Education and he had already applied/registered for Ph.D. at the relevant point of time. That, on 18.09.2010, the original Petitioner had completed his Ph.D and accordingly he informed the original respondent No.4-College by Regd. Post A.D and sent the certificate of Ph.D. That, interview for the post of P.T.I. Adhyapak Sahayak was held on 11th March, 2011, wherein, other two persons namely Sagar B.Desai and Rameshbahi Chaudhari were called for interview. That, at the time of interview, one representative of the Government, two expert members and two representative of Chancellor, in all total five persons were present. After, completing the procedure of interview, original petitioner was selected unanimously by the Selection Committee for the post subject to approval of the Government. A proposal was sent to the Government on 15th March, 2011. Thereafter, two persons namely Sagar B.Desai and Rameshbahi Chaudhari objected in writing on 11.03.2011 to the Government against the selection of the original petitioner made by the Committee. In pursuance of the said objections, Higher Education Commissioner issued notice on 12.05.2011 to the original Petitioner. Thereafter, on 17.5.2011, at the time of hearing, original Petitioner submitted his written reply stating that he has already completed Ph.D degree before the date of interview, and therefore, he had already acquired qualification for the purpose of selection as per the condition of the advertisement dated 24.12.2009 and at the time of interview, no one had raised any objections regarding his qualification for the said interview. Without considering the submissions of the original petitioner and the conditions mentioned in the advertisement dated 24.12.2009, Higher Education Commissioner cancelled and set aside the selection process of the original petitioner and also cancelled the N.O.C granted to the college by virtue of order dated 12.9.2011. That, original petitioner was granted higher grades by the representative of Government. That, the order dated 12.9.2011 passed by the Higher Education Commissioner was challenged by the original petitioner by way of filing Special Civil Application No. 16122 of 2011 wherein, this Court vide order dated 2nd July, 2012, set aside the impugned order dated 12.9.2011 and remanded the matter back directing the authorities to reconsider the matter as the said order was non-speaking. That, thereafter, representation was made by the original petitioner on 04.08.2012 stating that as per the advertisement dated 24.12.2009, he was eligible for appointment and after considering the said representation of the original petitioner and other relevant documents the authority passed an order dated 31st August, 2012 issued on 5th September, 2012 bearing No. KVT/V-4/12/13/5345.27 on the basis of the common order
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
