Gujarat High Court
Gujarat Public Service Commission vs Prashant Dilipbhai Sachaniya & 2 on 10 September, 2015
Author: Jayant Patel
Bench: Jayant Patel, N.V.Anjaria
C/LPA/1221/2015 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1221 of 2015
In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14251 of 2015
With
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10093 of 2015
In
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1221 of 2015
==========================================================
GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION....Appellant(s)
Versus
PRASHANT DILIPBHAI SACHANIYA & 2....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PREMAL R JOSHI, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS. MAMTA VYAS, ADVOCATE for respondent No.1
AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.
JAYANT PATEL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
Date : 10/09/2015
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JAYANT PATEL) The present appeal is directed against the order dated 3.09.2015 passed by the learned single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 14251 of 20154, whereby the learned single Judge for the reasons recorded in the order allowed the petition and has directed the respondent No.2 GPSC to include the name of the petitioner in the list of candidates who are called for interview scheduled to be held from 7th September, Page 1 of 3 HC-NIC Page 1 of 3 Created On Tue Sep 15 01:06:53 IST 2015 C/LPA/1221/2015 ORDER 2015 to 10th September, 2015.
2. We have heard Mr. Premal Joshi learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned advocate Ms. Mamta Vyas for respondent No.1 upon advance copy.
3. The contention raised on behalf of the appellant was that the requisite certificate was not produced before the prescribed time limit for production of the certificate. It was submitted that the original petitioner had lost the certificate and even xerox copy was not produced and the duplicate certificate has been produced later on. He, therefore, submitted that once the requirement was not satisfied, the learned single Judge could not have passed the order directing the GPSC to include the name of the original petitioner in the list of candidates who are to be interviewed.
4. We may record that Mr. Joshi has not been able to show any outer date prescribed in the advertisement or any communication indicating that the recruitment process provides for any outer date for production of non-creamy layer certificate. Further, it is not a matter where the genuineness of the certificate is at doubt. The original petitioner in the on-line application did mention the date of non-creamy layer certificate. The case of the original petitioner is that it was lost somehow and therefore, the petitioner was unable to produce the same, and thereafter the petitioner applied for duplicate copy and it has been produced. In our view, when the outer limit for production of such certificate was not specifically prescribed and when the genuineness of the certificate is not at doubt and the fact of genuineness of certificate dated 8.10.2013 tellies with the duplicate certificate produced, we do not find that the view taken by the learned single Judge could be said to be arbitrary or perverse which may call for exercise under the appellate power under the Letters Page 2 of 3 HC-NIC Page 2 of 3 Created On Tue Sep 15 01:06:53 IST 2015 C/LPA/1221/2015 ORDER Patent.
5. Under the circumstances, we do not find that any case for interference has been made. Hence, the appeal being meritless stands dismissed.
Order in Civil Application No. 10093 of 2015 In view of the order passed in the main appeal, the Civil Application does not survive. Hence disposed of accordingly.
(JAYANT PATEL, ACJ.) (N.V.ANJARIA, J.) cmjoshi Page 3 of 3 HC-NIC Page 3 of 3 Created On Tue Sep 15 01:06:53 IST 2015