Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Bhaveshkumar Karshan Kanjariya on 8 February, 2021
Bench: Mr. Justice Nath, Ashutosh J. Shastri
C/LPA/202/2021 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 202 of 2021
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7052 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2020
In
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 202 of 2021
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
BHAVESHKUMAR KARSHAN KANJARIYA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DM DEVNANI, AGP for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3
MR SAMIR B GOHIL(5718) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI
Date : 08/02/2021
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH)
1. We have heard Shri Dharmesh M. Devnani, learned
Assistant Government Pleader for the State- appellants, and
Shri Samir M. Gohil, learned counsel for the sole respondent
(original writ the petitioner).
2. The petitioner had applied for being appointed as Head
Teacher (Class-III). His case was not being considered
apparently for the reason that he had not completed the 5
years experience, which was required for the post. According
to the petitioner, he had completed the 5 years.
3. Special Civil Application No.7052 of 2017 was allowed by
learned Single Judge, vide judgment dated 22.7.2019, on the
C/LPA/202/2021 ORDER
findings recorded therein, holding that the the petitioner had
satisfied the criteria of having worked for 5 years or more as
Primary Teacher. The operative portion of the judgment of
learned Single Judge, as contained in para 6 and 7, is
reproduced below:-
"6. Resultantly, the respondents are directed to consider the
case of the petitioner to the post of Head Teacher, Class-III,
and give him appointment by treating him eligible in light of
the fact that he had the requisite total experience of five
years as Primary Teacher required for the said post.
Necessary order shall be made by the respondents within
two weeks from the date of receipt of writ of this order.
7. The petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute."
4. The State has come up in appeal, alleging that the claim
of the petitioner - respondent in appeal of having worked
from 14.6.2010 to 12.6.2011 in a non-Governmental
Institution, namely Sandipani Uchchatar Madhyamik Shala,
Shaktinagar, Jam Khambhalia, was not initially claimed by the
petitioner while filling up the form and later on, the relevant
documents of the same were not produced before the
authorities, as such learned Single Judge committed an error in
relying upon those documents which were filed along with the
petition.
5. Shri Gohil, learned counsel for the original petitioner-
respondent, submitted that the documents had been supplied
before the date on which they were to be supplied and the
relevant endorsement of the Educational Authorities on such
documents fully establishes that these documents were there.
Merely because the authorities lose their record or are not able
to properly maintain such record, the petitioner cannot be
made to suffer. Learned Single Judge has rightly allowed the
C/LPA/202/2021 ORDER
writ petition.
6. On the previous date, i.e. 12.1.2021, we had required
learned counsels for the parties to file further affidavits on the
issue mentioned therein. The said order is reproduced below:-
"One of the issues which is to be considered in this appeal is
as to whether the original writ petitioner - respondent had
worked from 14.06.2010 to 12.06.2011 in a
nongovernmental institution namely Shri Sandipani
Uchchatar Madhyamik Shala, Shaktinagar, Jam Khambhalia.
Shri Devnani, learned AGP may get this fact verified through
the department and if it is found that the original petitioner
had not worked with the said institution for the said period
then an affidavit to that effect may be filed with whatever
supporting material the department may get.
On the other hand, Shri Samir Gohil, learned counsel for the
original petitioner - respondent in the appeal would file an
affidavit annexing material to show that the original
petitioner had worked with the said institution and had
received salary either by way of cheque which he had
deposited in his own account, the statement of such own
account of the petitioner and if the salary was received by
way of direct transfer to the bank account even then the
statement of the bank account showing the transfer of the
salary for the said period.
As prayed, two weeks time is granted to both the sides. Let
this matter be listed on 08.02.2021."
7. Pursuant to the same, both the parties filed their further
affidavits. The documents have been annexed by the
petitioner- respondent in the form of muster roll and insofar as
the bank statement, etc. was concerned, the petitioner has
stated that he was receiving the salary in cash and for the said
purpose, had given the required certificate, as required by the
Educational authorities, and for the said purpose, he has
referred to Schedule-3 at page 66 of the compilation.
8. On the other hand, the affidavit filed by the
Administrative Officer, the Directorate of Primary Education
C/LPA/202/2021 ORDER
discloses a completely different picture. According to it, no
records are available with the school in question as the said
school has already been closed down. It also refers to the
further fact that even at the district level and the directorate
level, the records are not available. However, there is no
specific stand of the State that the petitioner has not worked in
the institution or that the documents filed by the petitioner are
created, forged and fabricated. Shri Devnani, learned Assistant
Government Pleader, upon instruction, has stated that the
inquiry is still on to find out the authencity, veracity and
correctness of the documents filed by the petitioner.
9. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and from
the facts, as are recorded above, we do not find any error in
the judgment of learned Single Judge as it stood before him on
the basis of the record available. However, we make it very
clear that this Court will not be supporting a person who has
indulged into forgery and fabrication, if ultimately found to
have been committed by creating experience record relating to
working in a private institution. We accordingly leave it open
for the State to continue with the inquiry on the documents
submitted by the petitioner and in case, if it is ultimately found
that these documents were forged and fabricated for the
purpose of creating evidence for experience, then the State
would be at liberty to take all appropriate steps against the
petitioner not only relating to the service but also initiating
criminal prosecution.
10. In view of the above, we DISMISS the appeal of the
State, but at the same time, grant the liberty, as recorded
above. Notice is discharged.
C/LPA/202/2021 ORDER
11. Consequently, the connected Civil Application also stands
disposed of.
(VIKRAM NATH, CJ)
(ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI, J)
OMKAR
