The validity of an authority's decision must be judged based on the reasons stated and cannot be supplemented by subsequent actions.

ORDER :

VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.

1. This is an appeal, filed by the appellant-State under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, challenging the common judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, Dated: 27.06.2022, in Special Civil Application No. 5948 of 2021 and the allied matters.

2. The factual matrix of the present case are as under;

Pursuant to the issuance of Advertisement No. 1/2021 by the appellant-State for recruitment to the post of Shiksan Sahayak in non-governmental grant-in-aid Higher Secondary Schools within the State, the opponent Nos. 1 and 2, herein, i.e. the petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 6502 of 2021, applied for the same by filling-up online form.

2.1 The qualifications of the Opponents are post graduation from Swami Vivekananda Mahavidyalaya, Sagar, Madhya Pradesh, and Rajiv Gandhi College, Barkatullah University, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, respectively.

2.2 Both the opponents were called for document verification. At the time of document verification, they produced migration certificates, transfer certificates, bona fide certificates, degree certificates, NCTE recognition letters etc. to demonstrate that they had undertaken the study of M.Ed. at the concerned college/University. However, the appellant-State did not consider the same, as valid and they were denied appointment.

2.3 Being aggrieved with the same, the Opponents-original petitioners preferred the captioned petition, wherein, the learned Single Judge passed the impugned order dated 27.06.2022 and allowed the same. Hence, the appellant-State has preferred the present appeal.

3. Learned AGP, Mr. Shah, appearing for the appellant-State mainly placed reliance on Clause-23 of Advertisement No. 1/2021 and submitted that the provisions of Clause-23 would be applicable to the students, who have studied in the university, which is situated outside the State of Gujarat and who have obtained degree from such a university.

3.1 It was, further, submitted that, as per Clause- 23 of Advertisement No. 1/2021, the concerned candidate is required to submit the proof of residence. It was submitted that so far as the present Opponents are concerned, they failed to provide requisite proof of their residence and therefore, their post graduation degrees were not taken into consideration and accordingly, they were not given 5 marks, i.e. for possessing post graduation degree.

3.2 Learned AGP, Mr. Shah, submitted that in a similar type of case, where, the appellant-State has challenged the order passed by the learned Single Judge, Dated: 27.06.2022, in Special Civil Application No. 12267 of 2021, by filing Letters Patent Appeal No. 145 of 2023, the Coordinate Bench of this Court has admitted the appeal and has also granted stay against the order of the learned Single Judge vide order dated 15.02.2023. It was, therefore, submitted that the present appeal may also be admitted and the order passed by the learned Single Judge may be stayed.

3.3 Learned AGP, Mr. Shah, further, submitted that the learned Single Judge ought not to have given direction to appoint the Opponents, herein, on the post in question, considering their post graduation degree as valid. It was, therefore, urged that the order of the learned Single Judge may be modified, accordingly.

4. On the other hand, learned Sr. Advocate, Mr. Gautam Joshi, appearing with learned Advocate, Mr. Amit Joshi, for the Opponents strongly opposed this appeal and submitted that the facts of the Letters Patent Appeal No. 145 of 2023 are totally different from the facts of the present appeal.

4.1 It was submitted that in Letters Patent Appeal No. 145 of 2023, the concerned candidate did not supply any of the documents, which are mentioned in Clause-23 of Advertisement No. 1/2021 and therefore, in the peculiar facts of the said case, the Coordinate Bench of this Court has admitted the appeal and has granted stay.

4.2 It was submitted that in the case on hand, the Opponents-original petitioners have produced all the documents, i