Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Monali Nitinkumar Joshi on 18 January, 2023
Bench: Niral R. Mehta
C/LPA/1722/2022 ORDER DATED: 18/01/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1722 of 2022
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6444 of 2021
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 2 of 2022
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1722 of 2022
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
MONALI NITINKUMAR JOSHI
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. MANAN MEHTA, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3
MS. MAMTA VYAS for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA
Date : 18/01/2023
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA)
Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Manan Mehta for
the appellant State and learned advocate Ms. Mamta Vyas for the
respondent-original petitioner.
2. The challenge in this Appeal is directed against common judgment
and order of learned single Judge dated 27.6.2022 in so far as it relates to
Special Civil Application No. 6444 of 2022.
3. The Special Civil Application filed by the respondent herein came
to be allowed by issuing the following directions,
C/LPA/1722/2022 ORDER DATED: 18/01/2023
"Petition is allowed. It is declared that the petitioner holds merit of
61.07 and therefore in accordance with this merit that was in the
provisional merit list first prepared the petitioner is entitled to be
appointed on the post of Shikshan Sahayak in English subject.
Respondents are directed to appoint the petitioner on the post in
question considering the degree as valid. Connected Civil Application
also stands disposed of. "
3.1 The petitioner-the respondent herein applied for the post of Sikshan
Sahayak in English subject in female category. Her merit initially
calculated at 61.09 was reduced to 56.94 by the competent authority on
the ground that requirements of clause 23 regarding production of
certificate by the candidate hailing from university outside the State was
not fulfilled.
4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that the requisite
certificates under clause 23 were not produced. Clause 23 mentions the
certificates including the migration certificate, if the candidate had passed
the secondary and higher secondary examination from other State.
Similarly migration certificate and bona fide certificate of the university
outside the state where the candidates may have studied were also
required to be produced. It also required the residential proof and the
receipt of showing the payment of hostel fee as well as hall ticket of the
place where the examination was given. The candidate was also required
to submit the eligibility certificate showing that he had undergone the
regular course from the university concerned.
4.1 According to submission of learned Assistant Government Pleader
though requirements were not complied with as the certificates produced
C/LPA/1722/2022 ORDER DATED: 18/01/2023
by the candidate-the petitioners were not sufficient to establish that she
had studied regularly in college/university outside the state.
5. The submission is not liable to be countenanced inasmuch as the
said aspect was gone into by learned single Judge to have a factual
observation and findings. Learned single Judge recorded thus,
"At the time of document verification, she produced the recognition
letter of NCTE, bonafide certificate of the college, rent agreement to
show that she was staying at a flat as her husband was employed in Pune
and the degree certificate etc. to suggest that she had undertaken her
M.Ed at the University. She also produced a certificate of having
undertaken a common entrance test and a certificate from the Savitri Bai
Phule, Pune University. However, the same was not considered as valid
and she was not appointed."
5.1 The aforesaid certificates, however, were not accepted by the
authorities on the ground that they did not meet with the requirments
mentioned in clause 23.
5.2 Learned single Judge held by reading clause 23 that certificates
were sufficient to establish that the petitioner had done her M.Ed. Course.
It was held and recorded,
"Reading clause 23 would indicate that the sufficiency of the petitioner
having done her M.Ed from the concerned college/University was
satisfied on the basis of the documents which she had produced which
are referred to hereinabove and therefore the denial of appointment to
the petitioner on the post of Shikshan Sahayak in the subject of English
was bad. The petitioner is entitled to be considered for appointment and
so appointed to the post of Shikshan Sahayak in the subject of English
considering merit 61.07 instead of 56.94."
C/LPA/1722/2022 ORDER DATED: 18/01/2023
6. The findings of learned single Judge could in no way be said to be
unreasonable or irrational and did not book any error requiring
interference.
7. The court is not inclined to exercise its jurisdiction under Letters
Patent jurisdiction. The appeal is meritless. It is dismissed.
In view of dismissal the Appeal, no orders are required to be
passed in the Civil Application. It stands disposed of accordingly.
(N.V.ANJARIA, J)
(NIRAL R. MEHTA,J)
C.M. JOSHI
