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) 475

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, HEMANT M.PRACHCHHAK, JJ.
State Of Gujarat – Appellant
Versus
Hetalben Hasmukhbhai Soni – Respondent
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 327 of 2023 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6818 of 2021 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 2 of 2022
Decided on : 14-03-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : MR JK SHAH
For the Respondent: MR KEVALSINH B RATHOD, MR.AMIT R JOSHI

The validity of an order must be judged by the reasons mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons.

Headnote:

Advertisement - Recruitment - Clause-23 of Advertisement No. 1/2021 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed Clause-23 of Advertisement No. 1/2021, which required candidates to submit proof of residence and specified conditions for candidates who studied in universities outside the State of Gujarat. The court also referred to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of 'MOHINDER SINGH GILL & ANR VS THE CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER, NEW DELHI, & OTHERS', reported in AIR 1978 SC 851, which emphasized that the validity of an order must be judged by the reasons mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons. The court highlighted the importance of considering the reasons stated in the order itself and not allowing additional grounds to validate the order.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant-State challenged the judgment allowing the petition filed by the Opponents, who were denied appointment despite producing all required documents, including those mentioned in Clause-23 of the advertisement.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Opponents had produced all relevant documents, and the authority's subsequent inquiry to justify its decision was impermissible. The court emphasized that the validity of an order must be judged by the reasons mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons.

Issues: The issues involved compliance with Clause-23 of Advertisement No. 1/2021 and the authority's justification of its decision through subsequent inquiry.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the authority's inquiry to fill in lacunae after the petition was filed was impermissible and emphasized the importance of judging the validity of an order based on the reasons mentioned in the order itself.

Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed, modifying the judgment to direct the appellants to treat the Opponents' post graduation qualification as valid and consider their case on merits. 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 Nos. 1 and 2, herein, i.e. the petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 6818 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 Kamala Nehru Mahavidyalaya, 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 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 Opponents-original petitioners have produced all the documents, including the docume

      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