Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Guj) 396

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, HEMANT M.PRACHCHHAK, JJ.
State Of Gujarat – Appellant
Versus
Radhikaben Dalsingbhai Bhamat – Respondent
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 165 of 2023 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11458 of 2021 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 2 of 2022
Decided on : 14-03-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : MR KURVEN DESAI, GOVERNMENT PLEADER, MR RASHESH RINDANI
For the Respondent: MR SHIRISH GOHIL

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. Additionally, conducting an inquiry to justify a decision after it has been made is impermissible.

Headnote:
Advertisement - Recruitment - Clause-23 of Advertisement No. 1/2021 - [Clause-23] - The court discussed the provisions of Clause-23 of Advertisement No. 1/2021, which required candidates to submit proof of residence and documents from universities outside the state. The court found that the appellant-State erred in not considering the post graduation degree of the Opponent and not giving her the required marks, as she had produced all the relevant documents, including those mentioned in Clause-23. The court also highlighted that the authority's subsequent inquiry to justify its decision was impermissible, citing the decision of the Apex Court in 'MOHINDER SINGH GILL & ANR VS THE CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER, NEW DELHI, & OTHERS', reported in AIR 1978 SC 851. The court modified the order of the learned Single Judge, directing the appellants to treat the post graduation qualification of the Opponent as valid and consider her case on merit for appointment.
Fact of the Case:

The Opponent applied for the post of Shiksan Sahayak in non-governmental grant-in-aid Higher Secondary Schools within the State. The appellant-State did not consider her post graduation degree as valid and denied her appointment, leading to the petition filed by the Opponent.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Opponent had produced all the relevant documents, including those mentioned in Clause-23 of the advertisement, and the appellant-State erred in not considering her post graduation degree and not giving her the required marks. The subsequent inquiry by the authority to justify its decision was impermissible.
Issues: The issues involved the consideration of the Opponent's post graduation degree, the validity of the authority's decision, and the permissibility of the subsequent inquiry conducted by the authority.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the authority erred in not considering the Opponent's post graduation degree and not giving her the required marks, as she had produced all the relevant documents. The subsequent inquiry conducted by the authority to justify its decision was impermissible.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the appeal, modified the order of the learned Single Judge, and directed the appellants to treat the post graduation qualification of the Opponent as valid and consider her case on merit for appointment 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. 11458 of 2021, applied for the same by filling-up online form.

2.1 The qualification of the Opponent is post graduation from Millennium College of Education, Bhopal, 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 she had undertaken the study of M.Ed. at the concerned college/University. However, the appellant-State did not consider the same, as valid and she 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. Desai, 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 her residence and therefore, her post graduation degree was not taken into consideration and accordingly, she was not given 5 marks, i.e. for possessing post graduation degree.

3.2 Learned AGP 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, further, submitted that the learned Single Judge ought not to have given direction to appoint the Opponent, herein, on the post in question, considering her 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 Advocate, Mr. Rindani, appearing with learned Advocate, Mr. Gohil, 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 consideration the post gradua