Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat-Through Chairman vs Palakbahen Prakashbhai Chaudhary on 7 September, 2015
Author: Jayant Patel
Bench: Jayant Patel, N.V.Anjaria
C/CA/9909/2015 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 9909 of 2015
In LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1212 of 2015
In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5116 of 2015
With
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1212 of 2015
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5116 of 2015
With
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9952 of 2015
In
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1212 of 2015
With
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9954 of 2015
In
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1212 of 2015
With
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9910 of 2015
In
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1213 of 2015
With
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1213 of 2015
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5119 of 2015
With
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9969 of 2015
In
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1213 of 2015
With
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9970 of 2015
In
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1213 of 2015
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT-THROUGH CHAIRMAN....Applicant(s)
Versus
PALAKBAHEN PRAKASHBHAI CHAUDHARY....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. D.M.DEVNANI, AGP for the Applicant(s) No. 1
Page 1 of 4
HC-NIC Page 1 of 4 Created On Thu Sep 10 01:00:43 IST 2015
C/CA/9909/2015 ORDER
MR TR MISHRA, CAVEATOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.
JAYANT PATEL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
Date : 07/09/2015
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JAYANT PATEL) Order in Civil Application No. 9909 of 2015 and in Civil Application No. 9910 of 2015
1. Rule in both the applications. Learned counsel Mr. T. R. Mishra for the respondents waives notice of Rule.
2. With the consent of learned advocates appearing for both the sides, the applications are finally heard.
3. The present applications are for condonation of delay of 38 days in preferring the appeal against the order of the single Judge, which is impugned in the respective main appeal.
4. Considering the facts and circumstances and in view of the grounds stated in the application for condonation of delay, sufficient cause has been made out, hence delay deserves to be condoned. Therefore, the delay is condoned. Rule is made absolute to the extent aforesaid. Both the Civil Applications stand disposed of accordingly.
Order in the main Appeals.
As the learned advocates for both the sides are ready for hearing of the appeals on merits, the office is directed to give the regular number to the LPAs forthwith.
Order in LAP No. 1212/2015 and LPA No. 1213 of 2015 As in both the appeals, common questions are arising for consideration, they are being considered simultaneously.
2. Both the appeals are directed against the common order dated Page 2 of 4 HC-NIC Page 2 of 4 Created On Thu Sep 10 01:00:43 IST 2015 C/CA/9909/2015 ORDER 10.06.2015 passed by the learned single Judge of this court in the respective SCA, 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 other documents, and it has been further clarified by the learned single Judge that if it is found that the document produced by the petitioners is not genuine, then it goes without saying that their appointments will be liable to be cancelled.
3. We have heard Mr. D. M. Devnani, learned AGP appearing for the appellant in both the appeals and Mr. T. R. Mishra learned counsel appearing for the original petitioners by caveat.
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 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 mark-sheet 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, Page 3 of 4 HC-NIC Page 3 of 4 Created On Thu Sep 10 01:00:43 IST 2015 C/CA/9909/2015 ORDER normally it is to be presumed as valid, unless a satisfactory material is produced before the competent authority. Schedule-2 provides for Applied Science also, and it is for the 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.
8. Both the appeals are disposed of accordingly. In view of the orders passed in the LPAs, Civil Applications filed in the respective LPA would not survive and the same shall also stand disposed of (JAYANT PATEL, ACJ.) (N.V.ANJARIA, J.) cmjoshi Page 4 of 4 HC-NIC Page 4 of 4 Created On Thu Sep 10 01:00:43 IST 2015