IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, HEMANT M.PRACHCHHAK, JJ.
State Of Gujarat – Appellant
Versus
Patel Mahendrakumar Prahladbhai – Respondent
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 167 of 2023 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6207 of 2021 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 2 of 2022
Decided on : 14-03-2023
Advertisement - Recruitment - Clause-23 of Advertisement No. 1/2021 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of Clause-23 of Advertisement No. 1/2021, which required candidates to submit proof of residence and other documents. The court highlighted the importance of producing relevant documents and the authority's obligation to consider the qualifications of the candidates. The court also emphasized the limitations on justifying decisions with subsequent actions, as per the decision in 'MOHINDER SINGH GILL & ANR VS THE CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER, NEW DELHI, & OTHERS', reported in AIR 1978 SC 851.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant-State challenged the judgment allowing the petition of the Opponent, who was denied appointment despite producing relevant documents for a teaching position.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Opponent had produced all relevant documents as per the advertisement requirements, and the authority's subsequent inquiry to justify its decision was impermissible. The court also noted the distinction between this case and a previous appeal, emphasizing the importance of document submission.
Issues: The issues revolved around the consideration of the Opponent's qualifications and the validity of the authority's decision based on Clause-23 of the advertisement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Opponent's qualifications were valid, and the authority erred in not considering them. The court also emphasized the limitations on justifying decisions with subsequent actions.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed, modifying the judgment to direct the appellants to treat the Opponent's post graduation qualification as valid and consider his case on merit within eight weeks.
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, herein, i.e. the petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 6207 of 2021, applied for the same by filling-up online form.
2.1 The qualification of the Opponent is post graduation from Swami Vivekanand Mahavidyalaya, Sagar, Madhya Pradesh.
2.2 The opponent was called for document verification. At the time of document verification, she produced migration certificate, transfer certificate, bona fide certificate, degree certificate, NCTE recognition letters etc. to demonstrate that he had undertaken the study of M.Ed. at the concerned college/University. However, the appellant-State did not consider the same, as valid and he was denied appointment.
2.3 Being aggrieved with the same, the Opponent-original petitioner 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 Opponent is concerned, he failed to provide requisite proof of his residence and therefore, his post graduation degree was not taken into consideration and accordingly, he was 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 Opponent, herein, on the post in question, considering his 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 Opponent strongly opposed this appeal and submitted that the facts of the Letters Patent Appeal No. 145 of 2023 are totally different than 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 Opponent-original petitioner has produced all the documents, including the documents, which are mentioned at Clause-23 of Advertisement No. 1/2021 and despite that the concerned authority did not take into
MOHINDER SINGH GILL & ANR VS THE CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER, NEW DELHI, & OTHERS’
The main legal point established in the judgment is the obligation of the authority to consider the qualifications of candidates as per the advertisement requirements and the limitations on justifyin....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the impermissibility of justifying decisions with subsequent actions and the need for compliance with advertisement guidelines.
The court emphasized the importance of considering the grounds stated in an order and not supplementing them with fresh reasons, as well as the need to examine the validity of an order based on the r....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the validity of an order must be judged by the reasons mentioned at the time of the order and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons later. A....
The validity of an order must be judged based on the reasons stated, and it is impermissible to supplement the reasons with subsequent actions or affidavits.
The validity of an order must be judged by the reasons mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons.
The validity of an authority's decision must be judged based on the reasons stated and cannot be supplemented by subsequent actions.
A candidate's eligibility should not be disregarded based on the absence of an original degree certificate if valid proof of graduation, such as a Grade Card, is submitted before the application dead....
The judgment establishes the principle that in the absence of a specific provision in the advertisement, there is a presumption that only the experience earned after acquiring the degree would be cou....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.