Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Dhairyasinh Bharatsinh Rathod on 18 September, 2015
Bench: Jayant Patel, N.V.Anjaria
C/LPA/1237/2015 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1237 of 2015
In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10395 of 2015
With
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10379 of 2015
In
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1237 of 2015
With
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10380 of 2015
In
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1237 of 2015
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT....Appellant(s)
Versus
DHAIRYASINH BHARATSINH RATHOD....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Appellant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.
JAYANT PATEL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
Date : 18/09/2015
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JAYANT PATEL)
1. The present appeal is directed against the against the order dated 29.06.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in SCA No.10395/15, whereby the learned Single Judge, for the reasons recorded in the order, has directed the authority to issue appointment order with the condition that the appointment would be subject to proper verification as regards the genuineness of the provisional certificate and the other documents and it has been further clarified by the learned Page 1 of 5 HC-NIC Page 1 of 5 Created On Wed Sep 23 23:55:12 IST 2015 C/LPA/1237/2015 ORDER Single Judge that if it is found that the documents produced by the petitioner is not genuine, then it goes without saying that the appointment will be liable to be cancelled.
2. We have heard Mr. Devnani, learned AGP appearing for the appellant and Mr. U.T.Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the original petitioner upon the advance copy.
3. The learned counsel appearing for both the sides are in agreement on the aspect that all issues which arise for consideration in the present appeal are already covered by the decision of this Court dated 07.09.2015 in LPA No.1212/15 and allied matters and it has been prayed that similar order be passed in the present appeal also.
4. We may record that this Court in the above referred Letters Patent Appeals, from paras 4 to 7, observed thus "4. The contention raised on behalf of the appelalnt was that the documents produced by the original petitioners were prima faice found to be doubtful and therefore, the process was undertaken to verify the genuineness of the documents. However, the said aspect could not be finalised because at relevant point of time, the registered office of the University was closed. It was submitted that in any case, final degree certificate was not issued. Learned AGP also relied upon one of the communications of the Rajasthan Government, wherein it has been stated that the University had the authority Page 2 of 5 HC-NIC Page 2 of 5 Created On Wed Sep 23 23:55:12 IST 2015 C/LPA/1237/2015 ORDER to conduct the course in respect of the fields as mentioned in the schedule No.2 only, and therein, veterinary science was not expressly found and therefore, the doubt was raised about conducting of such course by the university. Mr. Devnani, learned AGP submitted that before the authority could verify the said aspect, the direction is issued by the learned single Judge to issue appointment orders and then to verify at later stage and therefore, these present appeals.
5. Whereas, Mr. Mishra learned counsel for the original petitioners submitted that the petitioners have genuinely studied in the course, in question, and the university has also granted marksheet and the provisional certificate. It was submitted that the final degree certificate would be only after the convocation is held. However, he submitted that convocation has been held last month and therefore, the original petitioners will be in a position to produce the final degree certificate of the university within one month.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances, it appears to us that if the final certificate of the university is issued and produced before the competent authority of the appellant, then there will not be any impediment in issuing appointment order, as ordered by the learned single Judge and thereafter the authority may further enquire about the other aspects, if they so desire. It is hardly required to be stated that when the university is constituted by the statute and is enlisted in the list of UGC, the presumption would be that it is a valid university. Further, when the course is undertaken by the university, normally it is to be presumed as valid, unless a satisfactory material is produced before the competent authority. Schedule2 provides for Applied Science also, and it is for the Page 3 of 5 HC-NIC Page 3 of 5 Created On Wed Sep 23 23:55:12 IST 2015 C/LPA/1237/2015 ORDER authority to examine and verify as to whether the Applied Science would include veterinary science or not. In any case, unless satisfactory material is produced before the competent authority, it could not be concluded that the university had no authority to undertake a particular course, more particularly when the university is recognised by the UGC and is constituted by a specific statute. The verification may be at later stage, but upon final degree certificate produced by the petitioners, the appointment order should be issued by the appellant since original petitioners are in any case included in the select list and as per merit, the appointment is due to them.
7. In view of the aforesaid, it is observed and directed that if the original decree certificate is produced by the original petitioners within a period of one month from today, the appointment orders shall be issued by the competent authority within a period of 15 days thereafter in favour of the original petitioners as directed by the learned single Judge. The other conditions of further scrutiny would remain as ordered by the learned single Judge. It is also observed that after the appointment orders are issued, when the question arises for giving appropriate place in the seniority list, the original petitioners shall be at liberty to contend in accordance with law for maintainability of seniority. The order passed by the learned single Judge shall stand modified to the aforesaid extent only."
5. Since the fact situations are the same, we do not find that further discussion is required in this regard and we also find that similar direction deserves to be issued in the present appeal. Hence, it is observed and directed that if the Page 4 of 5 HC-NIC Page 4 of 5 Created On Wed Sep 23 23:55:12 IST 2015 C/LPA/1237/2015 ORDER original degree certificate is produced by the original petitioner within a period of one month from today, the appointment orders shall be issued by the competent authority within a period of 15 days thereafter in favour of the original petitioner as directed by the learned Single Judge. The other conditions of further scrutiny would remain as ordered by the learned Single Judge. It is also observed that after the appointment orders are issued and when the question arises for giving appropriate place in the seniority list, the original petitioner shall be at the liberty to contend in accordance with law for maintaining the seniority. The order passed by the learned Single Judge shall stand modified to the aforesaid extent only.
6. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. In view of the order passed in the main Letters Patent Appeal, Civil Applications would not survive and shall stand disposed of.
(JAYANT PATEL, ACJ.) (N.V.ANJARIA, J.) bjoy Page 5 of 5 HC-NIC Page 5 of 5 Created On Wed Sep 23 23:55:12 IST 2015