High Court of Gujarat
HITESH BHIMABHAI ULVAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT
- Decided
- Disposal
- 38-RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @ FH
- Bench
- NIRZAR S DESAI
Holding
The court ordered that the respondents grant the petitioners a provisional appointment within three months, subject to the Scrutiny Committee’s final decision on the caste certificate.
Summary
The petitioners, Hitesh Bhimabhai Ulva and another, were selected as Jail Sepoy (Class‑III) but were not appointed because the Scrutiny Committee had not yet verified their caste certificate. They invoked a prior judgment (Special Civil Application No. 1858 of 2021, affirmed by a Division Bench on 25‑Nov‑2021) where a similar delay led the court to order a provisional appointment. The State argued that the matter was pending before the Division Bench and sought more time. The High Court held that the earlier decision was binding and directed the respondents to grant the petitioners a provisional appointment within three months, subject to the final determination of the Scrutiny Committee on the genuineness of the certificate. The order also set out the consequences if the certificate is later found genuine or not, and disposed of the petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court should order a provisional appointment when the Scrutiny Committee fails to verify a caste certificate within a reasonable time.
- Whether the earlier judgment of the Co‑ordinate Bench, confirmed by the Division Bench, is binding on the present case.
Subjects
- caste certificate
- provisional appointment
- Scrutiny Committee
- reservation
- service appointment
- judicial precedent
- Gujarat
Judgment
C/SCA/1132/2026 ORDER DATED: 02/02/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1132 of 2026
=====================================================
HITESH BHIMABHAI ULVA & ANR.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
=====================================================
Appearance:
MR. RAVI L. GARCHAR(16000) for the Petitioner(s) No.
1,2
MR MITUL GAUTAM ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1,2,4
=====================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
Date : 02/02/2026
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Ravi Garchar on
behalf of the petitioner and learned Assistant
Government Pleader Ms. Nalanda D. Acharya on behalf
of the respondent-State.
2. Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned AGP
waives service of rule on behalf of the Respondents.
3. By way of this petition, the petitioner
inter alia challenges the inaction on part of the
respondents more particularly the Scrutiny Committee
Page 1 of 6
C/SCA/1132/2026 ORDER DATED: 02/02/2026
of not verifying the caste certificate issued in
favour of the petitioner, which has led to the
petitioner who was selected as Jail Sepoy, Class -
III, but not getting appointment.
4. Learned Advocate Mr. Garchar would draw the
attention of this Court to an order of learned Co-
ordinate Bench dated 26.07.2021 which has been
confirmed by Hon’ble Division Bench vide an order
dated 25.11.2021 and whereas learned Advocate would
submit that in a similar scenario, since the Scrutiny
Committee had not verified the caste certificate
within reasonable time, the learned Co-ordinate Bench
was pleased to direct the respondent authorities to
give provisional appointment to the petitioner
therein more particularly within a period of two
months from the date of receipt of writ of the Court
and whereas it was also clarified that if the caste
certificate of the petitioner was found not to be
genuine, the petitioner would not be entitled to
benefit of provisional appointment. It was further
clarified that if the caste certificate was found
Page 2 of 6
C/SCA/1132/2026 ORDER DATED: 02/02/2026
genuine it will be open for the petitioner to claim
actual appointment from the date his juniors were
appointed and also continuity of service and other
benefits.
4.1 Learned Advocate Mr. Garchar would also
draw the attention of this Court to order dated
25.11.2021 passed by Hon’ble Division Bench in
Letters Patent Appeal No. 984 of 2021 whereby the
above-referred order of learned Co-ordinate Bench had
been challenged and whereas vide said order, the
Hon’ble Court had also rejected the challenge,
confirming the order of the Hon’ble Division Bench.
Learned Advocate Mr. Garchar would submit that since
the issue in question in the petition before the
Hon’ble Co-ordinate Bench and the subject in issue in
the present petition being the same, this Court may
pass similar order in this petition also.
5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader
appearing for the respondents while he could not
dispute the fact about orders being passed by the
learned Co-ordinate Bench and whereas the same being
Page 3 of 6
C/SCA/1132/2026 ORDER DATED: 02/02/2026
confirmed by Hon’ble Division Bench, would submit
that the State is contemplating to have a
comprehensive exercisemore particularly considering
the fact that certain aspects of the issue in dispute
are pending before the Hon’ble Division Bench. They
would further submit that in any case if similar
orders were to be passed then some more time may be
granted to the Government.
6. Having regard to the submissions made by
learned Advocates for the parties, in the considered
opinion of this Court, order dated 26.07.2021 passed
by learned Co-ordinate Bench in Special Civil
Application No. 1858 of 2021 confirmed by Hon’ble
Division Bench was passed in similar set of facts and
therefore the decision would be binding on this Court
and whereas judicial propriety demands that this
Court should also follow the same view as laid down
by learned Co-ordinate Bench confirmed by Hon’ble
Division Bench.
7. Having regard to the same, it is directed
that the respondents shall give provisional
Page 4 of 6
C/SCA/1132/2026 ORDER DATED: 02/02/2026
appointment to the petitioner, to the post of Jail
Sepoy, Class-III, subject to the final decision taken
by the Scrutiny Committee. Such order shall be issued
by the respondents within a period of three months
from the date of receipt of writ of this order.
8. It is clarified that in case the Scrutiny
Committee comes to a conclusion before the period of
three months that the caste certificate produced by
the petitioner was not genuine then the respondents
are not required to give provisional appointment to
the present petitioner. In this regard that it is
further clarified that before finally deciding as to
the genuineness of the caste certificate all
procedure as contemplated under the law shall be
followed by the respondents.
8.1 It is further clarified that in case the
Scrutiny Committee does not take any decision as
regards the genuineness of the caste certificate then
provisional appointments shall be issued to the
petitioner in the posts referred to herein above and
whereas after the Scrutiny Committee comes to a
Page 5 of 6
C/SCA/1132/2026 ORDER DATED: 02/02/2026
conclusion, as regards the veracity and genuineness
of the caste certificate of the petitioner then (A)
in case if the caste certificate is not found to be
genuine it would be for the respondents to forthwith
terminate the services of the petitioner or not
further extend provisional appointment (B) if the
caste certificate is found to be genuine then it will
be open for the petitioner to claim seniority and all
other benefits including but not limited to
continuity of service etc as would be available to
him from the date when juniors to the present
petitioner had been appointed to the post in
question.
9. With the aforesaid directions, present
petition stands disposed of. Rule is made absolute to
the above extent. Direct service is permitted.
(NIRZAR S. DESAI,J)
Pallavi
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: PALLAVIBEN PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 02/02/2026 17:15:59
Page 6 of 6
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.