Gujarat High Court
Nazimabanu Akberbhai Shaikh S/O. ... vs Gujarat Vidhyapith on 4 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3489/2018 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3489 of 2018
==========================================================
NAZIMABANU AKBERBHAI SHAIKH S/O. AKBERBHAI SHAIKH
Versus
GUJARAT VIDHYAPITH & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
RONITH JOY(9560) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR MK VAKHARIA(1483) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MRS SUMAN KHARE(2226) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 04/08/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard Ld. Advocate Mr. Ronith Joy Mathew appearing for the Petitioner and Ld. Advocate Mr. Mehul Vakharia appearing for the Respondent Vidhyapith.
2. The present petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is preferred by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:
"YOUR LORDSHIPS BE PLEASED
a) quashing and setting aside the order dated 31.1.2018 at Annexure-A;
b) Reinstating the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits including the arrears of pay and seniority with 12% interest;
c) During the pendency and till the final disposal Page 1 of 12 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Tue Aug 05 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 05 22:40:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3489/2018 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined of the present petition, staying the further operation and implementation of the order dated 31.1.2018 at Annexure-A; and
d) Passing any other appropriate order."
3. The facts of the case are as under:
3.1 The petitioner is a highly qualified individual, having secured B.A., Bachelor of Library & Information Science, M.A., M.Phil, and a DCA qualification.
3.2 The petitioner was associated with the respondent Vidyapith on a contract basis since 1998. The respondent Vidyapith published an advertisement dated 10.06.2010 for the post of Lower Division Clerk and Library Assistants and other posts wherein the petitioner had applied for the post of Lower Division Clerk and Library Assistant and she was considered eligible.
3.3 Although the age limit for the post was 25 years (with a maximum of 30 including all relaxations), the Executive Committee of the Vidyapith vide order dated 24.12.2011 extended the upper age limit up to 45 years for internal candidates having more than 5 years of service as on 10.07.2010, enabling the petitioner to be eligible.Page 2 of 12 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Tue Aug 05 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 05 22:40:55 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3489/2018 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined 3.4 After going through the recruitment process (written test and personal interview), the petitioner was selected and appointed as a Library Assistant with effect from 02.06.2012, with salary as per UGC norms. 3.5 In September 2017, the Audit Department raised objections regarding the petitioner's appointment citing age- related violations, which were later referred to the Comptroller & Auditor General (CAG).
3.6 The petitioner was asked to respond and issued a show cause notice dated 14.11.2017, to which she replied on multiple occasions, justifying her appointment based on the relaxation policy adopted by the Vidyapith itself. 3.7 The petitioner submitted her reply contending that she was already working with the Institution and therefore the benefit of upper age relaxation was given to her as per decision of Executive Committee.
3.8 The petitioner was served with show cause notice dated 14.11.2017 which was replied on 21.11.2017 and there after the petitioner was called upon to submit documents. 3.9 Despite the submissions, the respondents proceeded Page 3 of 12 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Tue Aug 05 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 05 22:40:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3489/2018 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined to terminate the petitioner's services through the impugned order dated 31.01.2018.
4. Ld. Advocate for the Petitioner contended that the order dated 31.01.2018 terminating the petitioner deserves to be quashed and set aside and the Petitioner deserves to be reinstated with full consequential benefits. Ld. Advocate submitted that the Petitioner was working as an ad-hoc employee with the Respondent University since the year 1998 at the time of application. The advertisement did not indicate any age criteria. It is submitted that there is no allegation that the Petitioner suppressed any information from the Respondent University. It is further submitted that the Respondent University had itself granted age relaxation of up to 45 years in the case of appointments to the candidates who have worked on contract basis for more than five years with Gujarat Vidyapith. It was submitted that the Petitioner was eligible for age relaxation as per the resolution passed by the Respondent Vidhyapith itself since she was aged 42 years and 3 months at the time of appointment and she had worked on contract basis for more than 5 years with Gujarat Vidyapith. Ld. Advocate further submitted that after having served for more than 6 years, the Respondent University could have not turned around and challenged its own appointment order as being illegal. It was further submitted Page 4 of 12 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Tue Aug 05 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 05 22:40:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3489/2018 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined that the Respondent University was estopped from terminating the services of the Petitioner vide impugned order dated 31.01.2018 on the ground that the Petitioner did not meet the age criteria at the time of her appointment on 17.02.2011. It was further submitted that there was no bar on the Respondent in granting age relaxation.
5. Ld. Advocate Mr. Mehul Vakharia has submitted that appointment letter specifically states that the appointment will be subject to the condition no. 7 i.e. the final decision as regards to her appointment and further interpretation and suggestions given by the UGC and shall be binding on her. Ld. Advocate has vehemently argued that the appointment given in pursuance to the condition no. 7 is illegal and abinitio.
6. Ld. Advocate Mr. Mehul K Vakharia submitted that the Respondent University had passed the order based on the observations of the CAG Audit party which had observed that the appointment of the Petitioner was illegal since the Petitioner did not meet the age criterion at the time of her appointment. Consequently, Ld. Advocate for the Respondent requested this Hon'ble Court to not interfere in the present petition.
Page 5 of 12 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Tue Aug 05 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 05 22:40:55 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3489/2018 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined
7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case as well as the arguments made by the Ld. Advocates for the parties, it is held as under:
7.1 It is not in dispute that the Petitioner had served an ad-hoc employee on contractual basis since 1999 on various posts including the Library Department of the respondent and had completed more than 10 years as an ad-
hoc employee when she applied for the post of Library Assistant pursuant to the advertisement dated 08.06.2010 inviting applications for the post of Library Assistant. 7.2 It is further not in dispute that the Petitioner had not suppressed any information regarding her age or qualification at the time of her application. As per resolution no. 3 dated 18.10.2010 of the executive committee of the Respondent University, the Respondent University had granted relaxation of age upto 45 years, in the appointments to the candidates who have worked on contract basis for more than five years with Gujarat Vidyapith. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner had been rendering service as an employee on contractual basis since 1999 and was therefore, given the benefit of age relaxation by the Respondent University. That at the time of appointment, the Petitioner was 42 years, 3 months. After her appointment on Page 6 of 12 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Tue Aug 05 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 05 22:40:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3489/2018 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined 17.02.2011, the Petitioner has served for a period of more than six years before a show-cause notice dated 14.11.2017 was issued to terminate her on the ground that at the time of her appointment in 2010, she did not meet the age criteria.
7.3 In such circumstances, this Hon'ble Court is of the view that the Respondent University was not justified in terminating the services of the petitioner vide impugned order dated 31.01.2018. The Respondent University had itself granted age relaxation to the Petitioner as per the resolution no. 3 dated 18.10.2010 of the executive committee. The Respondent University could not point out any rule as per which it was barred from granting age relaxation. Even otherwise, the respondent could not have questioned its own appointment order after a period of more than 6 years of service having been rendered by the Petitioner especially when no fault can be put on the Petitioner. It is not the case of the Respondent University that the age of the Petitioner was suppressed or wrongly stated at the time of her appointment. The Petitioner was appointed to the post of Library Assistant with full knowledge by the Respondent University. The submission of the Ld. Advocate of the Respondent that it took the action on the basis of the observations of the CAG audit party cannot be countenanced Page 7 of 12 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Tue Aug 05 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 05 22:40:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3489/2018 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined since CAG Audit Party has not considered the aspects taken into account by this Hon'ble Court in the present petition and further, UGC itself has clarified vide letter dated 20.09.2017 that there are no rules notified by UGC for relaxation of age for appointment of department candidates and that it is upto the appointing authority to take a decision in the matter in accordance with the rules of Government of India.
7.4 It is settled law that it is not open for the employer to question its own appointment as being illegal after a huge lapse of time and after the employee has served for a considerable length of time. In Vikas Pratap Singh v. State of Chattisgarh 2013 14 SCC 494, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:
"22. ....It is also settled law that a person appointed erroneously on a post must not reap the benefits of wrongful appointment jeopardizing the interests of the meritorious and worthy candidates. However, in cases where a wrongful or irregular appointment is made without any mistake on the part of the appointee and upon discovery of such error or irregularity the appointee is terminated, this Court has taken a sympathetic view in the light of various factors including bonafide of the candidate in such appointment and length of service of the candidate after such Page 8 of 12 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Tue Aug 05 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 05 22:40:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3489/2018 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined appointment (See: Vinodan T. and Ors. v. University of Calicut and Ors.,(2002) 4 SCC 726; State of U.P. v. Neeraj Awasthi and Ors. (2006) 1 SCC 667).
23. In Girjesh Shrivastava and Ors. v. State of M.P. and Ors., (2010) 10 SCC 707, the High Court had invalidated the rule prescribing selection procedure which awarded grace marks of 25 per cent and age relaxation to the candidates with three years' long non- formal teaching experiences as a consequence of which several candidates appointed as teachers at the formal education institutions under the said rule stood ousted. This Court while concurring with the observations made by the High Court kept in view that upon rectification of irregularities in appointment after a considerable length of time an order for cancellation of appointment would severely affect economic security of a number of candidates and observed as follows :
"31. ...Most of them were earlier teaching in Nonformal education centers, from where they had resigned to apply in response to the advertisement. They had left their previous employment in view of the fact that for their three year long teaching experiences, the interview process in the present selection was awarding them grace marks of 25 per cent. It had also given them a relaxation of 8 years with respect to their age. Now, if they lose their jobs as a result of High Court's order, Page 9 of 12 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Tue Aug 05 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 05 22:40:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3489/2018 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined they would be effectively unemployed as they cannot even revert to their earlier jobs in the Non-formal education centers, which have been abolished since then. This would severely affect the economic security of many families. Most of them are between the age group of 3545 years, and the prospects for them of finding another job are rather dim. Some of them were in fact awaiting their salary rise at the time of quashing of their appointment by the High Court."
Therefore, mindful of the aforesaid circumstances this Court directed non-ouster of the candidates appointed under the invalidated rule.
7.5 This Court in Gujarat State Deputy Executive Engineers' Association v. State of Gujarat and Ors., 1994 Supp (2) SCC 591 although recorded a finding that appointments given under the `wait list' were not in accordance with law but refused to set aside such appointments in view of length of service (five years and more).
7.6 Considering that the Petitioner has rendered more than 6 years of service with the Respondent University at the time when show-cause notice dated 14.11.2017 was issued Page 10 of 12 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Tue Aug 05 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 05 22:40:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3489/2018 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined to her on the ground that she did not meet the age criteria at the time of her appointment in 2010-11, the above judgments would apply to the facts of the present case. Consequently, it would be inequitable to terminate the services of the Petitioner after a period of more than 6 years from the date of her appointment for no fault of her. 7.7 Further, the Respondent University is now estopped from questioning the appointment of the petitioner after having appointed the Petitioner and relying upon such appointment, the Petitioner accepted the same and worked for more than 6 years with the Respondent University. In Aruna Puri v. State 1995 SCC Online Raj 370; it was held as under :
"5. ... As regards the recruitment process is already completed by issuing appointment letters to the candidates, the respondents would be bound by the principles of estoppel. The candidates who applied for a post have a legitimate expectation and are entitled to presume that the employer has taken all the care to see that the process of selection is not wasted by any legality or any irregularity. When the process is complete and appointment letters are issued, at least the employer himself is not expected to turn around and tell the successful candidates, who have already been appointed, that the process of selection was wrong, and therefore, Page 11 of 12 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Tue Aug 05 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 05 22:40:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3489/2018 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined the appointments were illegal and non est....."
8. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that the impugned order dated 31.01.2018 cannot be sustained and therefore, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. The writ petition stands allowed. Consequently, the Respondent is directed to reinstate the Petitioner with all consequential benefits without Interest as if the order dated 31.01.2018 had not been passed. The Respondent is directed to pass consequential order in accordance with law within a period of 1 month from the date of receipt of the order of this Court. Direct Service is Permitted.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J) M.H. DAVE Page 12 of 12 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Tue Aug 05 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 05 22:40:55 IST 2025