Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Guj) 317

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, HEMANT M.PRACHCHHAK, JJ.
State Of Gujarat – Appellant
Versus
Patel Nareshkumar Prahladbhai – Respondent
R/Letters Patent Appeal No. 162 of 2023 In R/Special Civil Application No. 6819 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
For the Respondent:MR GAUTAM JOSHI, SR. ADVOCATE, MR KEVALSINH B RATHOD, MR.AMIT R JOSHI

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.

Headnote:
Advertisement - Recruitment Dispute - Clause-23 of Advertisement No. 1/2021 - The court discussed the provisions of Clause-23 of Advertisement No. 1/2021, which required submission of proof of residence and recognized university certificate. The court highlighted the importance of producing relevant documents and the impermissibility of justifying decisions with subsequent actions. The court also compared the facts of the present case with a similar case and emphasized the need for compliance with the advertisement guidelines.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant-State challenged the judgment allowing the petition of the Opponent, who was denied appointment as a Shiksan Sahayak due to the non-consideration of his post graduation degree. The Opponent had produced all relevant documents, including those mentioned in the advertisement, but the authority did not consider his qualification.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Opponent had produced all relevant documents and that the authority's subsequent inquiry to justify its decision was impermissible. The court also noted the distinction between the present case and a similar case, emphasizing the need for compliance with the advertisement guidelines.
Issues: Non-consideration of post graduation degree, validity of documents produced, impermissibility of subsequent inquiry to justify decisions, compliance with advertisement guidelines.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Opponent's post graduation qualification should be considered valid and directed the appellants to assess his eligibility for appointment on merit. The court emphasized the impermissibility of justifying decisions with subsequent actions and the need for compliance with advertisement guidelines.
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 appointment 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. 6819 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, he 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, Mr. Desai, 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 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 considerati