High Court of Gujarat
DHAVAL JEJABHAI TOLIYAversusRAJKOT MUNICIPALITY CORPORATION
- Decided
- Disposal
- 53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE
- Bench
- NIRZAR S DESAI
Holding
The Court ordered a provisional appointment of the petitioner subject to verification of his caste certificate by the Scrutiny Committee within three months, with appropriate consequences thereafter.
Summary
The petitioner, Dhaval Jejabhai Toliya, filed a special civil application seeking a writ of mandamus directing the Rajkot Municipal Corporation to appoint him as Medical Officer. The appointment was delayed because his caste certificate had not been verified by the Scrutiny Committee. The respondents argued that the verification was pending and no appointment could be made until a decision was received. The Court observed that in several earlier decisions it had ordered provisional appointments subject to a limited period for the Scrutiny Committee to complete verification, and that those decisions were binding on the present bench. Accordingly, the Court directed the Scrutiny Committee to decide on the authenticity of the petitioner’s caste certificate within three months, ordered a provisional appointment if no final order is issued, allowed termination of the appointment if the certificate is found false, and granted full seniority and benefits if the certificate is confirmed genuine. The petition was disposed of as allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the court can issue a mandamus directing provisional appointment of the petitioner pending verification of his caste certificate.
- Whether prior judgments of the same High Court are binding on the present bench in similar factual situations.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to seniority and benefits if the caste certificate is later confirmed genuine.
Subjects
- mandamus
- provisional appointment
- caste certificate verification
- Scrutiny Committee
- public service recruitment
- judicial precedent
Judgment
C/SCA/4530/2026 ORDER DATED: 02/04/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4530 of 2026
==========================================================
DHAVAL JEJABHAI TOLIYA
Versus
RAJKOT MUNICIPALITY CORPORATION & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance :
NIYATI V VAISHNAV for the Petitioner.
MR AAKASH GUPTA, AGP for the Respondent No.2.
MR YOGI K GADHIA for the Respondent No.1.
=========================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
Date : 02/04/2026
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned advocate Ms. Niyati Vaishnav on behalf
of the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.
Aakash Gupta on behalf of the respondent No.2 – State and learned
advocate Mr. Yogi K. Gadhia on behalf of the respondent no.1.
2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for
issuance of the writ of mandamus inter alia for directing the
respondent to appoint the petitioner as Medical Officer.
3. Learned advocate Mr. Yogi Gadhia appearing for
respondent No.1 submitted that they have filed affidavit-in-reply
and the Scrutiny Committee has sent the file to the Vigilance Cell
for verification and the respondent No.1 – Corporation has been
vigilant all along. He further submitted that unless decision is
received, appointing the petitioner would not be possible.
4. Considering the submissions made by learned
Page 1 of 4
C/SCA/4530/2026 ORDER DATED: 02/04/2026
advocates for the parties, it would appear that the issue in question
i.e. non-verification of the caste certificates of the present
petitioner has resulted in the petitioner not being appointed and
whereas, learned advocate Ms. Vaishnav would rely upon various
orders passed by this Court whereby persons similarly situated to
the present petitioner have been directed to be appointed albeit
after reasonable period of time whereby the Scrutiny Committee
would be able to scrutinize the caste certificate of the present
petitioner. It would appear that such orders passed by the learned
Coordinate Benches including this Court have been confirmed by
the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court.
5. Considering that in cases of similarly situated persons
whereby this Court has directed the respondents to provisionally
appoint the petitioners subject to certain time being granted to the
Scrutiny Committee, in the considered opinion of this Court, such
orders are required to be passed in the present petition as well.
6. At this stage, this Court seeks to rely upon paragraph
nos. 5 of the order passed by this Court dated 24.12.2021 in
Special Civil Application No. 16851 of 2020 and whereas, it would
appear that the said order has been confirmed by the Hon’ble
Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 08.11.2022 in Letters
Patent Appeal No. 973 of 2022 and allied matters. Paragraph no.5
is reproduced herein below for benefit :-
“5. 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
Page 2 of 4
C/SCA/4530/2026 ORDER DATED: 02/04/2026
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. Having
regard to the same, it is directed that the
respondents shall give provisional appointment to
the petitioners, to the posts of (A) Police Constable
(Armed), (B) Police Constable (Unarmed) and (C)
Jail Sepoy 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.”
6. Having regard to the observations as above, in the
considered opinion of this Court, the directions as issued at
paragraph nos. 6 and 6.1 of the above referred order requires to be
passed in the present petition also. Hence, the following directions
are passed :-
(I) The Scrutiny Committee is at liberty to pass
appropriate orders albeit after giving appropriate opportunity to
the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of
receipt of this order and whereas, the petitioner is also directed to
cooperate with the Scrutiny Committee.
(II) In case the Scrutiny Committee fails to issue a final
order as regards the caste certificate of the present petitioner, then
Page 3 of 4
C/SCA/4530/2026 ORDER DATED: 02/04/2026
the respondent Corporation is directed to issue provisional
appointment orders to the present petitioner.
(III) In case after the order of provisional appointment, if
the caste certificate of the present petitioner is not found to be
genuine, then it would be open for the respondents to forthwith
terminate the services of the petitioner or not further extend the
provisional appointments.
(IV) In case the caste certificate of the present petitioner is
found to be genuine by the Scrutiny Committee, then it would be
open for the respective petitioner to claim seniority and all other
benefits including, but, not limited to continuity of service etc. as
would have been available to them if they had been appointed at
the relevant point of time, more particularly, taking into
consideration a date when juniors of the petitioner have been
appointed.
7. With these observations and directions, the present
petition stands disposed of as allowed.
(NIRZAR S. DESAI,J)
SAVARIYA
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: RAJNISH NARENDRA SAVARIYA(HC00179), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 02/04/2026 14:50:18
Page 4 of 4
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.