High Court of Gujarat
MAYUR DEVRAJBHAI CHHELANAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT
- Decided
- Disposal
- 38-RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @ FH
- Bench
- NIRZAR S DESAI
Holding
The court ordered that the petitioner be given a provisional appointment subject to the Scrutiny Committee’s final decision on the authenticity of his caste certificate.
Summary
The petitioner, Mayur Devrajbai Chhelana, challenged the State of Gujarat for not verifying his caste certificate, which delayed his appointment as Lokrakshak Jail Sepoy, Class‑III. He relied on a prior order of the Coordinating Bench (Special Civil Application No. 1858 of 2021) and its confirmation by a Division Bench (Letters Patent Appeal No. 984 of 2021), which directed provisional appointment when verification was unduly delayed. The State argued that the matter was pending before the Division Bench and sought more time. The High Court held that the earlier precedent was binding and ordered the respondents to grant provisional appointment within four months, subject to the Scrutiny Committee’s final determination on the certificate’s genuineness. If the certificate is later found not genuine, the appointment will be terminated; if genuine, the petitioner will enjoy seniority and other benefits. The petition was consequently disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the State’s failure to verify the petitioner’s caste certificate within a reasonable time warrants a provisional appointment.
- Whether the High Court must follow the earlier Coordinating Bench and Division Bench orders in similar factual circumstances.
- What are the consequences if the Scrutiny Committee later determines the caste certificate to be not genuine?
Subjects
- caste certificate
- provisional appointment
- Scrutiny Committee
- reservation
- service appointment
- judicial precedent
- High Court order
Judgment
C/SCA/940/2026 ORDER DATED: 29/01/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.940 of 2026
=========================================
MAYUR DEVRAJBHAI CHHELANA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
=========================================
Appearance :
MR HARDIK D MUCHHALA for the Petitioner.
ADITYA DAVDA, AGP for the Respondents.
=========================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
Date : 22/01/2026
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Hardik D. Muchhala on
behalf of the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader
on behalf of the respondents – State.
2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Assistant
Government Pleader waives service of rule on behalf of the
respondent – State.
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
certificate issued in favour of the petitioner, which has led to the
petitioner, who is selected for the post of Lokrakshak Jail Sepoy,
Class - III, but, not getting appointment.
Page 1 of 5
C/SCA/940/2026 ORDER DATED: 29/01/2026
4. Learned Advocate Mr. Hardik D. Muchhala 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 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. Hardik D. Muchhala 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. Hardik D. Muchhala
Page 2 of 5
C/SCA/940/2026 ORDER DATED: 29/01/2026
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 for the
respondents while she could not dispute the fact about orders
being passed by the learned Co-ordinate Bench and whereas the
same being confirmed by Hon’ble Division Bench, would submit
that the State is contemplating to have a comprehensive exercise
more particularly considering the fact that certain aspects of the
issue in dispute are pending before the Hon’ble Division Bench.
She 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.
Page 3 of 5
C/SCA/940/2026 ORDER DATED: 29/01/2026
7. Having regard to the same, it is directed that the
respondents shall give provisional appointment to the petitioner, to
the posts of Lokrakshak 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 four 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 four 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 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
Page 4 of 5
C/SCA/940/2026 ORDER DATED: 29/01/2026
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.
9.1. The petitioner is directed to cooperate with the process
of scrutiny of the documents by producing original documents, as
and when called by the Scrutiny Committee.
9.1.1. Learned Advocate, Mr. Muchhala, submitted that the
petitioner will cooperate with the Scrutiny Committee in the
aforesaid exercise, but he may be informed about the date and
time, on which to appear before the Scrutiny Committee in
advance, by way of speed post, which shall be done by the
Committee. 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 29/01/2026 17:41:54
Page 5 of 5
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.