Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/4349/2008 4/ 4 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4349 of 2008
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
=============================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To be
referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=============================================================
SHAILESHKUMAR
AMRATBHAI PATEL - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
PH PATHAK for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR KRINA CALLA, LD.ASST.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for
Respondent(s) : 1,
RULE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1 - 3.
MS RV
ACHARYA for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 06/04/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
By
way of present petition, the petitioner
has inter alia prayed for quashing and setting aside the impugned
decision of respondent No.2 denying appointment to the petitioner
as Vidhya Sahayak and directing the respondent No.2 to issue
appointment order to the petitioner
as Vidhya Sahayak from retrospective effect and to grant him all the
consequential benefits along with arrears with interest at the rate
of 18% per annum.
During
the course of hearing, it is submitted by Ms.Krina Calla, learned
Assistant Government Pleader, that the issue involved in the
petition is squarely covered by the order dated 16th
February 2010 made by this Court (Coram : D.H. Waghela) in the case
of Ajaysinh Vikramsinh Sarvaiya v. State of Gujarat and others,
and therefore, in view of the same, the present
petition is required to be disposed of.
It
would be beneficial to reproduce the above cited decision as under :
1. The
petitioner has invoked Articles 14, 16 and 226 of the Constitution
upon denial of appointment to him as Vidhya Sahayak by respondent
no.2. The petitioner was denied appointment on account of doubts
about genuineness of the testimonials produced by him.
2. It
is the contention of the petitioner that, only due to mistake on part
of the clerk in the office of respondent no.3, wrong age was
mentioned in the certificate given to the petitioner and that mistake
was subsequently corrected. Therefore, the petitioner was entitled
to be appointed after being duly selected in the selection process
and being placed at serial no.262 in the merit list.
3. It
was fairly conceded for the respondent that similar other cases of
doubtful testimonials of the candidates, who were at serial nos.268
and 269 were heard by this Court (Coram:Honourable Justice
K.S.Jhaveri) and their petitions were allowed by order dated
13.1.2009 in Special Civil Application Nos.3102 and 3103 of 2008,
subject to certain conditions. That order is not disturbed when
Letters Patent Appeals were preferred therefrom, and after order
dated 23.11.2009 of Division Bench of this Court those candidates
have already been appointed.
4. Under
the above circumstances, present petition is also required to be
allowed subject to liberty to the respondent to conduct enquiry
regarding genuineness of the certificates produced by the petitioner.
Accordingly, the petition is partly allowed with the directions
that:
(I)
Letters dated 2.7.2007 and 18.12.2007, at Annexure-C and E of
respondent no.2, are set aside;
(II) The
respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for
appointment on the post of Vidhya Sahayak, as if the certificates
were genuine;
(III) It
shall be open for the respondent to conduct an enquiry regarding
genuineness of the certificates produced by the petitioner and if
certificates were found to be bogus, appointment of the petitioner
shall be liable to be cancelled.
5. Rule
is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. Direct
service is permitted.
In
view of aforesaid, when the issue involved in the present petitions
has already been decided by this Court by way of above cited
decision, in light of the same the present petition is required to
be disposed of and the same stands disposed of accordingly. The
parties to abide by the above cited decision. Rule is made
absolute with no order as to costs.
(K.S.
Jhaveri, J)
Aakar
Top