High Court of Gujarat
YUVRAJ KALABHAI CHAVDAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT
- Decided
- Disposal
- 46-ANY OTHER MODE @ FH
- Bench
- NIRZAR S DESAI
Holding
The Court held that, following the 2021 coordinate and division bench decisions, the respondents must grant the petitioner provisional appointment subject to the Scrutiny Committee’s final determination on the caste certificate.
Summary
The petitioner, Yuvraj Kalabhai Chavda, challenged the State of Gujarat for not verifying his caste certificate, which prevented his appointment as Jail Sepoy, Class‑III. He relied on a prior order of a coordinate bench dated 26‑07‑2021, affirmed by a division bench on 25‑11‑2021, which directed provisional appointment when verification was delayed. The respondents argued that the matter was pending before the division bench and sought more time. The Court held that the earlier precedent was binding and ordered the respondents to grant provisional appointment within three months, subject to the final decision of the Scrutiny Committee on the certificate’s genuineness. If the certificate is later found genuine, the petitioner will enjoy seniority and other benefits; if not, the appointment will be terminated.
Issues considered
- Whether the failure of the Scrutiny Committee to verify the caste certificate within a reasonable time obliges the State to grant provisional appointment.
- Whether the High Court must follow the earlier coordinate and division bench orders in identical factual circumstances.
- What are the legal consequences if the caste certificate is later determined to be not genuine?
Subjects
- caste certificate verification
- provisional appointment
- Scrutiny Committee
- administrative delay
- appointment of jail personnel
- precedent binding
- service continuity
Judgment
C/SCA/877/2026 ORDER DATED: 27/01/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.877 of 2026
=========================================
YUVRAJ KALABHAI CHAVDA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
=========================================
Appearance :
MR. RAVI L. GARCHAR for the Petitioner.
MS NALANDA ACHARYA, AGP for the Respondents.
=========================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
Date : 27/01/2026
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 of not verifying the caste
certi;cate 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 con;rmed by Hon’ble Division
Page 1 of 4
C/SCA/877/2026 ORDER DATED: 27/01/2026
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 veri;ed the caste certi;cate 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 clari;ed that if the caste certi;cate of the petitioner was
found not to be genuine, the petitioner would not be entitled to
bene;t of provisional appointment. It was further clari;ed that if
the caste certi;cate was found 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 bene;ts.
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, con;rming 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 con;rmed by Hon’ble Division Bench, would submit
that the State is contemplating to have a comprehensive exercise
Page 2 of 4
C/SCA/877/2026 ORDER DATED: 27/01/2026
more 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 con;rmed 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 con;rmed by Hon’ble
Division Bench.
7. Having regard to the same, it is directed that the
respondents shall give provisional appointment to the petitioner, to
the post of Jail Sepoy, Class-III, subject to the ;nal 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 clari;ed that in case the Scrutiny Committee
comes to a conclusion before the period of three months that the
caste certi;cate 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 clari;ed
that before ;nally deciding as to the genuineness of the caste
certi;cate all procedure as contemplated under the law shall be
followed by the respondents.
Page 3 of 4
C/SCA/877/2026 ORDER DATED: 27/01/2026
8.1 It is further clari;ed that in case the Scrutiny
Committee does not take any decision as regards the genuineness
of the caste certi;cate 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 conclusion, as
regards the veracity and genuineness of the caste certi;cate of the
petitioner then (A) in case if the caste certi;cate 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 certi;cate is found to be genuine then
it will be open for the petitioner to claim seniority and all other
bene;ts 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)
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 27/01/2026 17:33:01
Page 4 of 4
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.