Gujarat High Court
Rathod Dhairyasinh Bharatsinh vs Directorate Of Animal Husbandary on 29 June, 2015
Author: J.B.Pardiwala
Bench: J.B.Pardiwala
C/SCA/10395/2015 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10395 of 2015
===============================================
RATHOD DHAIRYASINH BHARATSINH....Petitioner(s)
Versus
DIRECTORATE OF ANIMAL HUSBANDARY....Respondent(s)
===============================================
Appearance:
MR TR MISHRA, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR.ROSHAN YAGNIK, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
===============================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
Date : 29/06/2015
ORAL ORDER
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr.Roshan Yagnik, the learned AGP waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent.
2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:
"7.(A) That Your Lordships be pleased to issue and order, direction and/or writ in the nature of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondent to immediately issue appointment order to the petitioner on the same terms and conditions which is mentioned in para.15 of the order and judgment in SCA No.5116/2015;
(B) That Your Lordships be pleased to direct the respondent to maintain the seniority of the petitioner in the Final Selection List declared by the respondent where the name of the petitioner is at sl.no.109;
(C) Pending admission and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships be pleased to direct the respondent to immediately issue appointment order to the petitioner;
(D) Any other and such further relief as the Hon'ble court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice;"
3. An identical issue fell for my consideration in Special Civil Application No.5116/2015 with Special Civil Application Page 1 of 7 C/SCA/10395/2015 ORDER No.5119/2015. This petition also can be disposed of in terms of the order passed by this Court dated 10.06.2015 in the aforestated writ petitions. I may quote the order dated 10.06.2015 as under:-
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Swapneshvar Gautam, the learned AGP, waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent.
2. The matter is taken up for final disposal with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties as the point involved in the matter is very short.
3. Since the issues involved in the two captioned applications are the same, those were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.
4. The petitioners applied for the post of Live Stock Inspector pursuant to the advertisement dated 21st January, 2014 issued by the Chairman, Departmental Selection Board and Director of Animal Husbandry, Office of the Animal Husbandry, Gandhinagar.
They appeared in the competitive examination conducted by the respondent-Selection Board and were selected for the said post. The petitioners, thereafter, produced their respective mark- sheets issued by the Jodhpur National University declaring the petitioners to have passed the Live Stock Inspector Course in the first division. Both the petitioners were selected and find place in the select list at Serial No.293 and 342 respectively.
5. The cause of action for coming before this Court by way of these two petitions was the decision of the respondent not to give appointment to the two petitioners despite the fact that their names figured in the select list based on two grounds. (I) the petitioners had not produced the final certificate and only a provisional certificate issued by the Jodhpur National University had been produced and (II) that the Jodhpur National University is a private University. The University can run courses which are included in Schedule- II of the Act. According to the Schedule -II of the University Act, the University is not authorized to run the course in the discipline of the veterinary science.
6. The second objection has been raised for the first time in the course of the hearing of this two petitions. The petitioners were informed only about the first objection referred to above.
7. Mr. T.R. Mishra, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, vehemently submitted that the stance of the respondent in refusing to issue the appointment letter is not tenable in law and the two objections raised deserve to be overruled. Mr. Mishra submitted that the petitioners have been able to produce the provisional certificates as the final certificates will be issued only after the Convocation is held by the University. Mr. Mishra pointed out that his clients have Page 2 of 7 C/SCA/10395/2015 ORDER received a letter dated 3rd March, 2015 of the respondent to the effect that if they failed to produce the final certificates of the University, their names would be deleted from the select list and they would not be granted appointment. Mr. Mishra, in support of his submissions, has placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Dolly Chhanda vs. Chairman, Jee and Ors. 2005 (9) SCC 779 and a judgment of this Court in the case of Pagi Jagingbhai Zalabhai vs. Collector (Civil Supply Department) & Ors. 2011 (3) GLH 367. Mr. Mishra submitted that it is not the fault of the petitioners that the final certificates have not yet been issued to them by the Jodhpur National University and the respondent cannot cancel the selection of the petitioners only on such ground. Mr. Mishra submits that no sooner the Convocation is held by the university and final certificates are issued, then the petitioners would immediately produce the same before the respondent. Mr. Mishra submitted that there is no substance worth the name even in the second objection which has been raised. Mr. Mishra pointed out the correct position so far as the second objection is concerned in his affidavit-in-rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondent.
8. In such circumstances referred to above, Mr. Mishra prays that there being merit in both these applications, they deserve to be allowed.
9. On the other hand, these two applications have been vehemently opposed by Mr. Swapneshwar Gautam, the learned AGP appearing for the respondent. Mr. Gautam pointed out that an Administrative Officer is Dr. K.R. Modi for specially deputed to visit personally the Jodhpur University, Rajasthan for confirming the validity and genuinity of the mark-sheet and the certificates issued by the University. Dr. Modi visited the university personally on 19th March, 2015 but was not allowed to enter in the campus of the University and was informed that the Office of the University Registrar was closed. Mr. Gautam pointed out that, thereafter, a lady, namely, Monika contacted Dr. Modi at the gate of the University and informed him that the university would get the certificates verified and appropriate reply would be communicated to the State Government within 15 to 30 days. It is the case of the respondent that till date, the Animal Husbandry has not received any reply from the University. According to Mr. Gautam, without proper verification as regards the genuineness of the certificates, no appointment can be given. Mr. Gautam further submitted that the provisional certificate issued by the Jodhpur National University dated 20th April, 2015 certifying that the petitioners appeared at the certificate in Live Stock Inspector examination conducted in June, 2013 and have been declared passed in the first division is of no avail because the Jodhpur National Uiniversity is a private University and is not authorized to conduct the course in the discipline of the veterinary science.
10. According to Mr. Gautam, the learned AGP, there being no merit in both these applications, they deserve to be rejected.
Page 3 of 7 C/SCA/10395/2015 ORDER11. Affidavit-in-rejoinder has been filed by the petitioners. The status and the position of the University has been well explained in the rejoinder. The rejoinder reads thus:
"1. I say that the only contention relevant in the entire affidavit-in-reply is para.8, para 9 and para 10. In this connection, I respectfully submit that the Jodhpur National University is constituted in pursuance of Clause (3) of Article 348 of the Constitution. The Governor has passed Act, namely, Jodhpur National University Act in 2009 (Act No.6/2009), received the assent of Governor on 3-1-2009. Section 5(b) provides that the University shall have the following powers and functions namely;
"Clause (b) - to grant, subject to such conditions as the University may determine, Diploma or Certificates and confer degree or other academic distinctions on the basis of examination, evaluation or any other method of testing of persons and to withdraw anysuch Diplomas, Certificates, Degrees or other academic distinctions for good and sufficient cause."
The University is recognized by the U.G.C and the name of the Jodhpur National University appears at sl.no.15. Thus, Jodhpur National University is recognized by the University Grant Commission. A copy of the information received on the website of the University Grant Commission is annexed marked Annexure'1' to the rejoinder-affidavit. Apart from this, the University Grant Commission, Section 2(f) defines the University and the same is reproduced hereunder;
"2(f)- University means a University established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, a provincial Act or a State Act, and includes any such institution as may be in consultation with the University concerned, be recognized by the Commission in accordance with the Regulation made in this behalf under this Act."
Section 22 of the said act provides for right to confer Degree, same is reproduced hereunder;
"Section 22(1)- Right of conferring or granting Degree shall be exercised only by university established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, a Provincial Act or such Act or an Institution deemed to be an University u/s.3 or a Institution specifically empowered by an Act of Parliament to confer or grant Degree;
(2)- Save as provided in sub-clause (1), no person or authority shall confer or grant or hold himself or itself out as entitled to confer or grant any Degree;
(3) For the purpose of this section, Degree means, any such Degree as may, with previous approval of the Central Act, be specified in this behalf by the Commission by Notification in the Official Gazette."
2. The Government of Gujarat, Agriculture, Forest Page 4 of 7 C/SCA/10395/2015 ORDER and Co-operation Department, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, has framed Ruiles with regard to recruitment of Live Stock Inspector vide Notification dated 4-2-2012. A copy of the Notification with regard to recruitment of Live Stock Inspector is also annexed marked Annexure '2' to this affidavit-rejoinder. Thus, the Degree, Certificate, Marksheet issued by the University is not a fake degree.
3. In the affidavit-in-reply the deponent has relied upon some Press Advertisement wherein some degree is found to be take degree or Certificate. On the Press Cutting appeared in newspaper the issue cannot be decided whether the Degree or Certificate issued by the University is take. To find out the genuineness of the Certificate-mark-sheet, it is necessary that the Hon'ble Court be kind enough to issue notice to the University to produce the record about the genuineness of mark-sheet- provisional certificate. But mere allegation on the basis of the newspaper cutting the appointment cannot be denied, more particularly when the petitioner has appeared in the written test and has passed the said test and the name of the petitioner appeared in the Select List for issue of appointment order. The petitioner respectfully submits that an application under Right to Information Act, was made before the Registrar, Jodhpur National University on 23-4-2015, by the representative of the petitioner asking for certain information in respect of the petitioner and a copy of the said application is annexed marked Annexure'3' to this affidavit-rejoinder. The petitioner did not receive immediate reply and therefore, petitioner went in person and the petitioner was handover a letter dated 22-5-2-15 addressed to the Director of Animal Husbandry, Gandhinagar, alongwith the paper of verification containing 4 pages and a copy of the same is annexed marked Annexure'4' to this affidavit-rejoinder.
4. The deponent has created confusion between Vaternity Science and Live Stock Inspector. Both the courses are altogether different. So far Vaternity Science is concerned, there is an Act known as The Indian Vaternity Council Act, 1984 and Section 2(j) of the said Act, provides Vaternity Institute means any University or other institution within or outside India which grant Degree, Diploma or licence in Vaternity Science and Animal Husbandry. Section (k) of Section 2 defines Vaternity Medicines means, modern scientific fabricated medicine. In all it its branches includes Vaternity Surgery of obsetries. Therefore, Vaternity Science is governed by separate Act or Parliament which has nothing to do with Live Stock Inspector. The Recruitment Rules of Live Stock Inspector are altogether different as placed on record of this Hon'ble Court. The relevant provisions of Section 2(i),
(j) & (k) is annexed with this affidavit-rejoinder marked Annexure'5' to this rejoinder-affidavit.
5. The petitioner respectfully submits that the petitioner has produced all the relevant documents and genuineness about Certificate and therefore, the Hon'ble Page 5 of 7 C/SCA/10395/2015 ORDER court be kind enough to issue direction to the respondent to issue appointment order to the petitioner forthwith."
12. In view of the position regarding the status of the Jodhpur National University as explained in the affidavit-in-rejoinder, the second objection raised by the respondent in the course of hearing of this application deserves to be overruled and is, accordingly, overruled.
13. Three facts are not in dispute.
(i) The two petitioners studied at the Jodhpur National University.
(ii) They appeared at the certificate in Live Stock Inspector Examination in June, 2013 and were declared passed in the first division.
(iii) The mark-sheets of the respective petitioners are on record.
14. The Department seems to be in some sort of doubt as regards the genuineness of the provisional certificate issued by the University. The Department also tried its best to ascertain the genuineness but unfortunately the day on which the Administrative Officer Mr. Modi reached the University, the University was closed. Thereafter, there was some communication in writing between the Animal Husbandry Department and the University. However, the fact remains that till this date, the necessary information has not been received by the Animal Husbandry Department. A the same time, I should also not overlook the fact that the Convocation is yet to be held by the University. It is only after the Convocation is held that the final certificates will be issued to the petitioners. I do not want to say for a minute that the Animal Husbandry Department should not inquire into the genuineness of the certificates if there is any genuine doubt. All necessary steps which are required should be undertaken. However, at the same time, only on mere suspicion or doubt, without anything more, the Department should not refuse to appoint the petitioners to the post of Live Stock Inspector and cancel the appointment.
15. For the foregoing reasons, both these applications are allowed. The respondent is directed to appoint the petitioners to the post of Live Stock Inspector subject to certain terms and conditions. The respondent shall issue the appointment letter with a condition that the appointment will be subject to proper verification as regards the genuineness of the provisional certificate and other documents. The respondent shall, once again, undertake the exercise of proper verification of the documents in that regard at the earliest. Ultimately, if it is found that the documents produced by the petitioners are not genuine, then of course it goes without saying that their appointments will be liable to be cancelled. Mr. Munshaw pointed out at this stage Page 6 of 7 C/SCA/10395/2015 ORDER that all other candidates figuring in the select list even junior to the two petitioners have been issued the appointment letters in March, 2015 and have also started working. This will cause some prejudice to the two petitioners and, therefore, the respondent is directed to see that the appointment letters are issued within a period of two weeks from today.
4. In view of the above, this petition is allowed. The respondent is directed to appoint the petitioner to the post of Live Stock Inspector subject to terms and conditions. The respondent shall issue the appointment letter with a condition that the appointment will be subject to proper verification as regards the genuineness of the provisional certificate and other documents. The respondent shall, once again, undertake the exercise of proper verification of the documents in that regard at the earliest. Ultimately, if it is found that the documents produced by the petitioners are not genuine, then of course it goes without saying that their appointments will be liable to be cancelled. Mr. Yagnik, the learned AGP pointed out at this stage that all other candidates figuring in the select list even junior to the two petitioners have been issued the appointment letters in March, 2015 and have also started working. This will cause some prejudice to the two petitioners and, therefore, the respondent is directed to see that the appointment letters are issued within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the writ of the order.
5. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.
(J.B.PARDIWALA, J.) dharmendra Page 7 of 7