SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Guj) 395

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, HEMANT M.PRACHCHHAK, JJ.
State Of Gujarat & others – Appellants
Versus
Narendrakumar Amrasinh Baria – Respondent
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 164 of 2023 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11499 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
For the Respondent: MR RASHESH RINDANI, MR SHIRISH GOHIL

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 reasons stated.

Headnote:

residence - recruitment dispute - Clause-23 of Advertisement No. 1/2021 - [Clause-23] - The court discussed the provisions of Clause-23 of Advertisement No. 1/2021, which required the submission of proof of residence for candidates who studied in a university outside the State of Gujarat. The court found that the appellant-State erred in not considering the post graduation degree of the Opponent and not giving five marks to him based on Clause-23. The court directed the appellants to treat the post graduation qualification of the Opponent as valid and consider his case on merit for appointment.

Fact of the Case:

The Opponent applied for a teaching position in non-governmental grant-in-aid Higher Secondary Schools. The appellant-State did not consider the Opponent's post graduation degree as valid due to a lack of proof of residence and denied appointment.

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 that the appellant-State erred in not considering the post graduation degree of the Opponent. The court directed the appellants to treat the post graduation qualification of the Opponent as valid and consider his case on merit for appointment.

Issues: Dispute over the validity of the Opponent's post graduation degree and the requirement of proof of residence as per Clause-23 of Advertisement No. 1/2021.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant-State erred in not considering the post graduation degree of the Opponent and not giving five marks to him based on Clause-23. The court directed the appellants to treat the post graduation qualification of the Opponent as valid and consider his case on merit for appointment.

Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed, and the court modified the judgment to direct the appellants to treat the post graduation qualification of the Opponent as valid and consider his case on merit for appointment. The appellants were directed to complete the exercise 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. 11499 of 2021, applied for the same by filling-up online form.

2.1 The qualification of the Opponent is post graduation from Rajeev Gandhi College, 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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 graduation degree

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      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

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top