Gujarat High Court
Rupaben Mukeshkumar Bhavsar vs Gujarat Vidhyapith on 4 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2580/2018 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2580 of 2018
==========================================================
RUPABEN MUKESHKUMAR BHAVSAR
Versus
GUJARAT VIDHYAPITH
==========================================================
Appearance:
ADITYA A GUPTA(7875) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR MK VAKHARIA(1483) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 04/08/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard Ld. Advocate Mr. Aditya A Gupta appearing for the Petitioner and Ld. Advocate Mr. Mehul Vakharia appearing for the Respondent University. The present petition is filed for the following reliefs:
a) YOUR LORDSHIPS BE PLEASED to Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, direction or order to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 31.01.2018 bearing No. GV/VC/167-171/2017-2018 passed by the respondent at Annexure A to this petition in the interest of justice and to Issue such other writ, order or direction in the interest of justice.
b) YOUR LORDSHIPS BE PLEASED to stay operation and implementation of the impugned order dated Page 1 of 13 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Tue Aug 05 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 05 22:40:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2580/2018 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined 31.01.2018 bearing No. GV/VC/167-171/2017-2018 passed by the respondent at Annexure A pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition in the interest of justice.
c) Or In the Alternative, Be PLEASED to direct the Respondent University to continue paying regular salary to the Petitioner pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition in the interest of justice.
d) BE PLEASED to grant ex-parte ad-Interim relief in terms of para 24(b) or 24(c) as deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition in the interest of justice. the interest of Justice pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition in the Interest of justice.
e) YOUR LORDSHIPS BE PLEASED pass such other and further orders, which may be deemed fit in the interest of justice.
2. The brief facts arising out of the present petition are as under:
Page 2 of 13 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Tue Aug 05 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 05 22:40:51 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2580/2018 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined 2.1 The petitioner had been working at Gujarat Vidyapith/Respondent as an ad-hoc employee on contractual basis since 1990 on various posts including the Library Department of the respondent.
2.2 The Respondent issued a public advertisement inviting applications for the post of Library Assistant on 08.06.2010. The public notice /advertisement published in the newspaper had no mention of any maximum age limit. The petitioner submitted her application for recruitment on the post of Library Assistant with all the relevant documents as sought by the respondent.
2.3 The Executive Committee of the respondent had vide Resolution No. 3 dated 18.10.2010 gave the relaxation of age upto 45 years in the appointments to the candidates who have worked on contract basis for more than five years with Respondent University.
2.4 It is not in dispute that the Petitioner had worked on contract basis with Respondent University for more than 5 years and therefore, the Petitioner was eligible for age relaxation as per Resolution No. 3 of 18.10.2010.
2.5 The Petitioner was appointed on the post of Library Assistant on probation vide appointment letter dated 11.04.2012. That after being satisfied with the service of the Page 3 of 13 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Tue Aug 05 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 05 22:40:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2580/2018 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined Petitioner, she was confirmed on the post of Library Assistant. At the time of appointment, the Petitioner was 41 years.
2.6 It appears that CAG audit party took an objection in 2016-17 that certain appointments including the appointment of the Petitioner was made in violation of the age criteria. It appears that the Respondent sought clarification from UGC vide letter dated 25.02.2017. In response to the Respondent's letter dated 25.02.2017 seeking UGC's clarification, UGC clarified 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 Govt. of India.
2.7 The petitioner was rendering her services when the Petitioner received a letter dated 29.09.2017 from the Respondent University stating that CAG had taken an objection in its audit in the matter of appointment of the Petitioner. That the objection was that at the time of appointment of the Petitioner she was exceeding the age limit of 30 years.
2.8 The Respondent issued show-cause notice dated 14.11.2017 to the Petitioner. It appears that on account of Page 4 of 13 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Tue Aug 05 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 05 22:40:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2580/2018 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined the observations of the CAG Audit that the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Library Assistant is against the norms of the UGC/GOI as the petitioner was not meeting the age limit criteria of 30 years at the time of appointment, the Respondent University initiated proceedings to terminate the service of the Petitioner from the University.
2.9 The Petitioner took several objections vide its representation dated 27.11.2017. The Petitioner further made an additional representation against the show cause notice on 14.12.2017. However, the Respondent terminated the services of the Petitioner vide its termination letter dated 31.01.2018.
3. 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 for more than 10 years 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 Page 5 of 13 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Tue Aug 05 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 05 22:40:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2580/2018 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined 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 University 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 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 11.04.2012. It was further submitted that there was no bar on the Respondent in granting age relaxation. It was further submitted to take a sympathetic view considering that the Petitioner is an unmarried lady who was completely dependent on her job with the Respondent University.
4. 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 Page 6 of 13 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Tue Aug 05 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 05 22:40:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2580/2018 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined be binding on her. Ld. Advocate has vehemently argued that the appointment given in pursuance to the condition no. 7 is illegal and ab initio. 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.
5. 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:
5.1 It is not in dispute that the Petitioner had served an ad-hoc employee on contractual basis since 1990 on various posts including the Library Department of the respondent and had completed more than 20 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. 5.2 It is further not in dispute that the Petitioner had not suppressed any information regarding her age or Page 7 of 13 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Tue Aug 05 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 05 22:40:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2580/2018 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined 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 1990 and was therefore, given the benefit of age relaxation by the Respondent University. That at the time of appointment, the Petitioner was 41 years. After her appointment on 11.04.2012, the Petitioner has served for a period of more than five 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 2011-12, she did not meet the age criteria. 5.3 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 Page 8 of 13 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Tue Aug 05 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 05 22:40:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2580/2018 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined appointment order after a period of more than 5 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 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.
5.4 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:
Page 9 of 13 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Tue Aug 05 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 05 22:40:51 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2580/2018 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined "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 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 Page 10 of 13 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Tue Aug 05 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 05 22:40:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2580/2018 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined candidates and observed as follows:
"31. ...Most of them were earlier teaching in Non-formal 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, 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 35-45 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.
25. This Court in Gujarat State Deputy Executive Page 11 of 13 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Tue Aug 05 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 05 22:40:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2580/2018 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined 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)."
5.5 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 to her on the ground that she did not meet the age criteria at the time of her appointment in 2011-12, 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. 5.6 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 Page 12 of 13 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Tue Aug 05 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 05 22:40:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2580/2018 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined 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, the appointments were illegal and non est....."
6. 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 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 13 of 13 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Tue Aug 05 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 05 22:40:51 IST 2025