Gujarat High Court
Bhupatsinh Bhurabhai Sidhav vs State Of Gujarat on 8 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11173/2019 ORDER DATED: 08/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11173 of 2019
==========================================================
BHUPATSINH BHURABHAI SIDHAV
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
ME MEET V JANI FOR DR.ABHISST K THAKER(7010) for the Petitioner(s)
No. 1
MR HENIL SHAH, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 08/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. This petition is filed for following prayers:
"25(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction quashing and setting aside the show cause notice dated 15.05.2019 being A/MHK/T-7-1549-51 by the respondent no.3; (B) Pending hearing and final disposal of the petition, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the respondents not to terminate the services of the petitioner as beat guard Class- III;
(C) Pending hearing and final disposal of the petition, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to stay the operation, implementation and execution of the show cause notice dated 15.05.2019 being A/MHK/T-7-1549-51 for termination of petitioner;Page 1 of 9 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Jul 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 09 22:19:46 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11173/2019 ORDER DATED: 08/07/2025 undefined (D) xxxx"
2. The brief facts leading to filing of this petition are such that the petitioner was appointed as Forest Guard in the year 2003 in accordance with the Forest Guard Recruitment Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the `Forest Guard Rules'). That, on 15.5.2019, the respondents asked the petitioner to provide details with regard to his passing the basic training examination by stating that those persons who had not passed the basic training examination in accordance with the Guards (Training and Examination) Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 2008) could not be continued in service. By the impugned communications, the services of the petitioner were sought to be terminated.
The petitioner approached this Court by filing the present petition, wherein by order dated 28.6.2019, this Court issued notice and directed the respondents to maintain status-quo with regards to service conditions of the petitioner.
3. Heard learned advocates for the parties. 3.1 Learned advocate Mr.Jani for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1992 Page 2 of 9 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Jul 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 09 22:19:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11173/2019 ORDER DATED: 08/07/2025 undefined and the Rules applicable for appointment were the Rules called the Guards (Subordinate Forest Service) Recruitment Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to Rules of 1969). Relying on Rules 6 to 8 of the said Rules, he submits that the Rule 8 of the Rules did not stipulate or have a circumstance that on a failure to pass the Guards training examination, the services will be terminated and that reliance on the Rules of 2008 is misconceived. He submitted that reading the Rules of 2008, it is clear that the same will be applicable to the candidates selected for appointment to the posts of Guards (Class III) in accordance with the Rules of 2004 and therefore, these Rules are not applicable to the petitioner. He further submitted that the petitioner's services were sought to be terminated after 16 years of service, on the ground that when the petitioner was recruited, he ought to have passed the basic training examination, which is clearly misconceived on two grounds (i) that such an action could not be taken after 16 years of service and (ii) assuming for the sake of argument the decision was so taken, the presumption of applicability of Rules of 2008 was misconceived as they were not applicable to the petitioner who was appointed pursuant to the Rules of 1969. Learned advocate for the petitioner has relied on the judgment dated 3.9.2020 passed in Special Civil Application No.10653 of 2019, which pertains to similarly situated persons and which is allowed by the said judgment Page 3 of 9 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Jul 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 09 22:19:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11173/2019 ORDER DATED: 08/07/2025 undefined by coordinate Bench and submitted that the same would apply to the facts of this case and therefore this petition also be allowed.
4. Learned AGP Ms.Shah for the respondent-state has vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that Rule 6 of 2008 Rules specifically made it clear that if a direct recruit forest guards fails to pass the post training examination, his services shall be terminated and by virtue of the operation of these rules, no fault can be found with the action of the department. She submitted that even as per the 1969 Rules a direct recruit forest guard was expected to possess and undertake the examinations as provided under Rule 9 of the 1969 Rules. Therefore, the action of the respondent authorities in issuance of show cause notice is justified and this petition may be dismissed.
5. I have considered the submissions of rival parties and also perused the material on record. Relevant Rules are as under:
"Rules of 1969:
Rule 6:
To be eligible for appointment by direct selection to the post of the Guards in the lower subordinate Forest Service, Page 4 of 9 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Jul 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 09 22:19:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11173/2019 ORDER DATED: 08/07/2025 undefined candidate must:
(a) be not less than 18 years of age and not more than 25 years of age.
(b) have passed the Gujarat IV standard. (C) Possess the following minimum standard of physique: (D) FOR ADIVASI CANDIDATS:
(I) Height 5'1" or 1.5494 meters of 155 cms. (II) Chest : NORMAL 30" or 0.7620 meters or 76 c.ms.
EXPANDED 32" or 0.8128 meters *81 cms).
MINIMUM EXPANSION 2" or Cms.
Rule 8:
After passing out of the medical examination the selected candidates shall be required to undergo practical training in the field for a period of two months. Thereafter, they shall be sent in the Guards Training Class for Training of through grounding in the theoretical and practical aspects of forestry."
Rules of 2008:
Rule 1(2):
They shall apply to the candidates selected for appointment to the post of Guards, Class III under the Guards, Class II Page 5 of 9 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Jul 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 09 22:19:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11173/2019 ORDER DATED: 08/07/2025 undefined (in the Gujarat Subordinate Forest Service in the Forest Department) Recruitment Rules, 2004. 2(D) :
"Post training examination" means the examination held after the training is over for candidates selected as Guards as per appendix-A;
Rule 3 :
Every candidate selected for appointment to the post of Guard shall require to undergo PRE-SERVICE TRAINING for a period of six months (theoretical and practical) at the Forestry Training School, Kakrapar. Rule 4:
On successful completion of the training, the candidate shall require to appear at the post training examination and shall require to pass the same in not more than three chances. Rule 6:
If a direct recruit fails to pass the examination as required under these Rules, his service shall be terminated. Rule 7(1) :
It prescribes the syllabus for training in Appendix A which contains 9 subject + discipline, conduct excursion and tours and sports and physical training + viva voice." Page 6 of 9 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Jul 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 09 22:19:46 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11173/2019 ORDER DATED: 08/07/2025 undefined
6. It is undisputed that the petitioner was appointed on the basis of 1969 Rules. Rule 6 of 1969 Rules would indicate that the only stipulation in the Rule was that the petitioner ought to pass his basic training examination. Nowhere there is a stipulation that if a candidate fails to pass his basic training examination, his services will be put to an end. The notices dated 15.5.2019 would indicate that the respondents have proceeded on the assumption that the 2008 Rules required that the petitioner ought to have passed his basic training examination and having failed to do so, his services ought to have been terminated. It is a specific case in the Rules of 2008 that they apply to candidates who were appointed pursuant to the selection made in accordance with the Rules of 2004. The petitioner was appointed in the year 1992 and therefore the Rules of 2004 was not the Rules pursuant to which the petitioner was selected and appointed and therefore the 2008 Rules which have been pressed into service for putting an end to the petitioner's tenure of service is completely misconceived. The respondents have lost sight of the fact that apart from pressing into service of Rules and terminating the services of the petitioner after 16 years of service, what is also evident is that the Rules of 2008 is pressed into service, when in fact, the submission of learned advocate Mr.Jani for the petitioner is to accepted that the Rules of 2008 had no application inasmuch as the Page 7 of 9 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Jul 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 09 22:19:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11173/2019 ORDER DATED: 08/07/2025 undefined recruitment Rules of 1969 were the Rules, pursuant to which the petitioner was recruited. The Rules of 2008 were only in context of the recruitment made in accordance with 2004 Rules.
7. The coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 3.9.2020 passed in Special Civil Application No.10653 of 2019, has allowed the petition, wherein the petitioners' services were terminated and this Court, after discussing the relevant Rules allowed the petitions. In the case of hand, the petitioner approached this Court on the issuance of show cause notice and status-quo was granted at the time of issuance of notice.
8. It is brought to notice by learned advocate for the petitioner that the petitioner is superannuating in the year 2027.
9. In view of the above, this petition is allowed. The impugned show cause notices dated 15.05.2019 being A/MHK/T-7-/1549-51 by the respondent no.3 are hereby quashed and set aside. As the petitioner is superannuating in the year 2027, all the consequential benefits shall be made available to the petitioner, as if the impugned notices were never passed. Needless to say that the same would also Page 8 of 9 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Jul 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 09 22:19:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11173/2019 ORDER DATED: 08/07/2025 undefined include terminal benefits and the petitioner would be entitled to pension and pensionary benefits as per the service conditions rules as if the impugned notices were never passed. The said benefits will be paid to the petitioner within a period of 8(eight) weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J) SRILATHA Page 9 of 9 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Jul 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 09 22:19:46 IST 2025