Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Darshanpuri Ladhupuri Goswami on 24 February, 2016
Author: Anant S. Dave
Bench: R.Subhash Reddy, Anant S. Dave
C/LPA/127/2016 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 127 of 2016
In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11897 of 2015
With
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1750 of 2016
In
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 127 of 2016
================================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT....Appellant(s)
Versus
DARSHANPURI LADHUPURI GOSWAMI....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR DHARMESH DEVNANI AGP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR TR MISHRA, CAVEATOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. R.SUBHASH
REDDY
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
Date : 24/02/2016
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE) 1 By filing this appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, the appellant State of Gujarat has challenged the order dated 27.07.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.11897 of 2015, by which, writ petition filed by respondent herein came to be allowed directing the appellant - State of Gujarat to appoint the respondent Page 1 of 11 HC-NIC Page 1 of 11 Created On Wed Mar 02 00:06:59 IST 2016 C/LPA/127/2016 ORDER to the post of Live Stock Inspector subject to certain terms and conditions.
2 Initially, it was recorded by learned Single Judge that the petitioner was denied appointment on two counts viz. the petitioner had not produced the final certificate and only a provisional certificate issued by the Jodhpur National University was produced and that the Jodhpur National University is a private university and was not authorized to run courses which are included in ScheduleII of the Act, more particularly, course in the discipline of Veterinary Science.
3 Learned Single Judge also considered earlier decisions dated 10.06.2015 rendered in Special Civil Application Nos.5116 and 5119 of 2015 and passed order directing the appellant herein to appoint respondent herein on certain terms and conditions.
4 It is not in dispute that against the earlier dated 10.06.2015 passed in both the above Special Civil Application Nos.5116 and 5119 of 2015, State of Gujarat preferred Letters Patent Appeal Nos.1212 and 1213 of 2015 respectively and Division Bench of this Court disposed of the above appeals vide order dated 07.09.2015.
5 It is also not in dispute that in a similar Page 2 of 11 HC-NIC Page 2 of 11 Created On Wed Mar 02 00:06:59 IST 2016 C/LPA/127/2016 ORDER petition being Special Civil Application No.10395 of 2015, the learned Single Judge vide order dated 29.06.2015 allowed the said petition with a direction to the respondent - State of Gujarat to issue appointment letter in favour of petitioner therein. Being aggrieved by the order dated 29.06.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge, the State of Gujarat preferred Letters Patent Appeal No.1237 of 2015 and Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.09.2015 disposed of the above appeal. Later on, the original writ petitioner has preferred Misc. Civil Application No. 2880 of 2015 seeking some modification in the order dated 18.09.2015 passed in Letters patent Appeal No.1237 of 2015 and allied matters by which officer of the State Government were permitted to visit the office of the university after giving prior intimation.
5.1 Both the above orders are reproduced on record by learned AGP appearing for the appellant - State.
6 It is not in dispute that facts of the present case are almost identical to the facts of Letters Patent Appeal No.1237 of 2015 and Misc. Civil Application No.2880 of 2015 and allied matters. For the sake of convenience, both the above orders are reproduced herein below:
6.1 Order dated 18.09.2015 passed by Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.1237 Page 3 of 11 HC-NIC Page 3 of 11 Created On Wed Mar 02 00:06:59 IST 2016 C/LPA/127/2016 ORDER of 2015, reads as under:
"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 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 appellant was that the documents produced by the original petitioners were prima facie found to be doubtful and therefore, the process was undertaken to verify the genuineness of the documents. However, the Page 4 of 11 HC-NIC Page 4 of 11 Created On Wed Mar 02 00:06:59 IST 2016 C/LPA/127/2016 ORDER said aspect could not be finalized 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 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 Page 5 of 11 HC-NIC Page 5 of 11 Created On Wed Mar 02 00:06:59 IST 2016 C/LPA/127/2016 ORDER 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 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 recognized 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 Page 6 of 11 HC-NIC Page 6 of 11 Created On Wed Mar 02 00:06:59 IST 2016 C/LPA/127/2016 ORDER 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 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".
6.2 Order dated 05.11.2015 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Misc. Civil Application [For Modification of Order] No. 2880 of 2015 in Letters Patent Appeal No.1327 of 2015 in Special Civil Application No.10395 of 2015 with Misc. Civil Application No. 2793 of 2015 in Letters Patent Appeal No.1213 of 2015 with Misc. Civil Application No.2794 of 2015 in Civil Page 7 of 11 HC-NIC Page 7 of 11 Created On Wed Mar 02 00:06:59 IST 2016 C/LPA/127/2016 ORDER Application No.9909 of 2015, reads as under:
"We have heard learned counsel Mr. Mishra appearing for the applicants, Mr. D.M.Devnani, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent No.1 State original appellant and Mr. Virat Popat for Jodhpur National University.
2. As such when this Court considered the matter of LPA No. 1237 of 2015 and allied matters on 18.9.2015, since the convocation was in contemplation for conferment of the degree, the declaration was made on behalf of the respondentoriginal petitioner that the same shall be produced and this Court on that basis directed that if the original degree certificate is produced by the original petitioner within one month from that day, the appointment order 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. It was further observed that other conditions of further scrutiny would remain as ordered by the learned single Judge. This Court had also observed that after the appointment orders are issued and 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 maintaining the seniority. Thereafter the order of the learned single Judge was modified accordingly.
2.1 As, thereafter, it appears that the convocation was postponed by the university and as a result thereof, the applicants hereinoriginal petitioners since were unable to produce the original degree, they have preferred all the present application to modify the earlier order praying that the respondent authority be directed to issue the appointment orders subject to production of Page 8 of 11 HC-NIC Page 8 of 11 Created On Wed Mar 02 00:06:59 IST 2016 C/LPA/127/2016 ORDER the original certificate as and when the convocation is held.
3. As some doubt was raised about the functioning of the university and the degree obtained by the original petitioner concerned on behalf of the appellant State, in the present application, Jodhpur National University was ordered to be impleaded a as party respondent and the notice was issued by this Court to the said university.
4. In response to the notice issued by this Court, Mr. Popat learned counsel has appeared on behalf of the Jodhpur National University and the affidavitinreply has been filed on behalf of the university by the Registrar of the said university and it has been stated that the convocation for Diploma students is not being held every year, and the provisional degree certificates are given by the university on payment of requisite fee. Mr. Popat learned counsel appearing for the university confirms the position that all the original petitioners have studied with the university and the provisional certificates are issued by the university. However, it was submitted that the convocation may be deferred and no date is certain about the convocation.
5. In above view of the matter, we find that when advocate of the university itself confirmed about the passing of the requisite examination and issuance of the provisional certificates there would not be any valid ground on the part of the appellantState to withhold the appointment orders merely on the ground that the original degree certificates are not produced. But at the same time, other observation made for further scrutiny can be kept open.
6. Hence, the earlier order passed in the LPA is modified to the effect that the concerned applicant hereinoriginal petitioner shall be offered appointment order on or before Page 9 of 11 HC-NIC Page 9 of 11 Created On Wed Mar 02 00:06:59 IST 2016 C/LPA/127/2016 ORDER 23.11.2015 from today as directed by learned single Judge. The other conditions observed by this Court for further scrutiny shall remain unaltered.
7. All the applications are disposed of accordingly. Direct service is permitted.
8. Mr. Popat on behalf of the university has stated that any officer of the State Government will be free to visit the office of the university after giving prior intimation and the any details, if called for and if available, shall also be supplied in respect of the original petitioners."
7 Learned counsels for the parties have no dispute so far as the above factual situation is concerned.
8 Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, the issue involved in the appeal is no longer res integra and we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal Nos.1212 and 1213 of 2015, Letters Patent Appeal No.1237 of 2015 and Misc. Civil Application [For Modification of Order] No. 2880 of 2015 in Letters Patent Appeal No.1327 of 2015.
9 For the reasons recorded in orders passed in Letters Patent Appeal Nos.1212 and 1213 of 2015, Letters Patent Appeal No.1237 of 2015 and Misc. Civil Application [For Modification of Order] No. 2880 of 2015 in Letters Patent Appeal No.1327 of 2015, this appeal is also disposed of accordingly Page 10 of 11 HC-NIC Page 10 of 11 Created On Wed Mar 02 00:06:59 IST 2016 C/LPA/127/2016 ORDER and directions contained therein shall be binding to the parties to this appeal also.
10 In view of the order passed in main appeal, no order on Civil Application No.1750 of 2016 and the same stands disposed of.
(R. SUBHASH REDDY, CJ) (ANANT S.DAVE, J.) pvv Page 11 of 11 HC-NIC Page 11 of 11 Created On Wed Mar 02 00:06:59 IST 2016