Gujarat High Court
Gondaliya Vinodray Harjivanbhai vs State Of Gujarat on 11 July, 2025
Author: Nikhil S. Kariel
Bench: Nikhil S. Kariel
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9498/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9498 of 2025
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9495 of 2025
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9497 of 2025
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9082 of 2025
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9177 of 2025
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9186 of 2025
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8753 of 2025
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8755 of 2025
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9043 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==========================================================
GONDALIYA VINODRAY HARJIVANBHAI & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
In SCA Nos. 9498/2025, 9495/2025, 9497/2025
MR GAURAV CHUDASAMA(5660) for the Petitioner(s) No.
1,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,2,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,3,30,31,32,
33,34,35,36,37,38,39,4,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,5,50,51,52,53,54,6,7,8
,9
MR ADITYA PATHAK, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1,2
MR MANISH J PATEL(2131) for the Respondent(s) No. 6
In SCA Nos.9082/2025, 9177/2025, 9186/2025, 8753/2025, 8755/2025,
9043/2025
MR SHALIN MEHTA, LD. SR. ADV. with MR GAURAV MEHTA for the
Petitioners
MR ADITYA PATHAK, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent
- State
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL
Date : 11/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Shalin Mehta with Page 1 of 14 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 21:57:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9498/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined learned advocate Mr.Gaurav Mehta and learned advocate Mr.Gaurav Chudasama for the petitioners and learned AGP Mr. Aditya Pathak for the respondent State. 1.1. At the outset, it requires to be noted that having made extensive arguments, learned Advocate Mr.Gaurav Chudasama and learned Advocate Mr.Gaurav Mehta seeks permission to withdraw the present petitions. The same is opposed by learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Aditya Pathak appearing on behalf of the respondent - State.
2. It appears to this Court that the issue involved in the present petitions is not limited to the petitioners only and whereas, the issue involved is with regard to a class of persons namely those who have received the benefit of inter- district transfer and whereas, to ensure that there is no further litigation on this aspect, to this Court, having heard learned advocates for the respective parties, it would be appropriate to pass an order so as to ensure that the issue receives a quietus.
3. By way of these petitions, the petitioners have inter alia sought to question an administrative instruction dated Page 2 of 14 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 21:57:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9498/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined 28.05.2025 by the Education Department, more particularly whereby the Education Department has inter alia instructed the Director of Primary Education to follow the new working pattern whereby in case of giving charge of head teacher, seniority is to be considered from the date of joining the department and not from the date of joining the district. 3.1. It appears that the petitioners before this Court are the teachers in primary schools who have received the benefit of inter-district transfer and whereas, as per the policy of the State Government vide various resolutions, lastly being Government Resolution dated 11.05.2023, in case of inter- district transfer at the request of the teacher concerned, the concerned teacher would lose her seniority and would be placed in the bottom of the seniority list in the concerned district as well as in the school. The petitioners having been transferred out of the district of their original appointment. 3.2. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners are working in primary schools which do not have a confirmed set-up of head teachers. It appears that confirmed set-up of head teachers is available only for schools having strength of more than 150 insofar as schools having standard 1 to 5 are Page 3 of 14 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 21:57:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9498/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined concerned and for standard 6 to 8, minimum of more than 100 students are required for a permanent set-up of head teachers and whereas, the petitioners are working in schools less than 150 or 100 students as the case may be, where there is no permanent set-up.
3.3. It is the case of the petitioners that vide the instructions impugned in the present petitions, the Education Department of the State has instructed the Director of Primary Education to give charge of head teacher to teachers based upon their seniority in the date of joining in service as against their present seniority. The petitioners contend that since they are the junior most in the seniority list, the responsibility of accepting the charge of head teachers should not be fastened upon them, more particularly the petitioners contending that in terms of grant of benefits, the petitioners being placed at the bottom of the seniority list, they should not be given any additional responsibility.
4. Learned Senior Counsel Mr.Mehta as well as learned Advocate Mr.Chudasama appearing on behalf of the respective petitioners would take this Court extensively through instructions issued vide communication dated Page 4 of 14 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 21:57:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9498/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined 28.05.2025 and would submit that the instructions inter alia make it mandatory for the teachers i.e. like the present petitioners, who may be higher in the overall seniority, but lower in the seniority after availing of inter-district transfer to be given the charge of head teacher upon the existing incumbent being relieved for various reasons. Learned Senior Advocate as well as learned Advocate would submit that such a responsibility ought not to be given to the present petitioners since in the seniority list of the District as well as in the school, the petitioners would be at the bottom. 4.1. It is submitted that while for the purpose of giving charge of head teachers, the date of entry in service is being taken into consideration, whereas, insofar as in case of over set-up, the date of joining the school concerned would be treated as the appropriate date. It is submitted that such dual policy could not be adopted by the State Authorities. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioners that while there were instructions hereinbefore which did not make it mandatory for the teachers who have joined after getting the inter-district transfer to take up the post of head teachers, after the instructions in question, it has become mandatory Page 5 of 14 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 21:57:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9498/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined for the teachers like the petitioners to accept such handing over of charge.
4.2. It is submitted that in case of giving charge of head teachers, while the actual seniority of the petitioners i.e. seniority with effect from the date of entry in service is taken into consideration whereas the date of entry in service is not being taken into consideration for any other purpose including for promotion etc. Thus submitting, learned Senior Advocate and learned Advocate would assail the decision of the State Government.
5. On the other hand, the present petitions are vehemently opposed by learned AGP Mr.Pathak on behalf of the respondent - State.
5.1. Learned AGP would submit that as such, the instruction dated 28.05.2025 is not an instruction whereby the petitioners are being permanently given any charge. It is submitted that the instruction itself envisage that the petitioners would be handed over charge of head teachers and whereas, it would be an interim measure till persons are appointed on regular basis. Learned AGP would further submit that in any case, the Page 6 of 14 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 21:57:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9498/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined petitioners are not able to show any prejudice whatsoever which occurs to them on account of the charge being given to them. It is submitted by learned AGP that as such, insofar as the aspect of over set-up, promotion and grant of any other benefits is concerned, the petitioners, knowing very well that upon being granted inter-district transfer at their own request, they would lose their seniority, they cannot now turn around under the guise of questioning the handing over of charge of head teacher to the petitioners and contend that if the charge of head teachers is handed over to them, consequently, the petitioners may be considered amongst others for the benefits of seniority or not being considered as a surplus upon exercise of over set-up being considered or for promotion etc. 5.2. It is submitted by learned AGP that while in normal course, the petitioners are, as per the policy of the State Government, placed in bottom of the seniority list, whereas, the exercise contemplated vide instruction dated 28.05.2025 is an administrative exercise for administration convenience and whereas, since the petitioners are not able to show any genuine prejudice which occurs to them on account of the Page 7 of 14 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 21:57:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9498/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined same, these petitions may not be entertained.
6. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the documents on record.
6.1. At the outset, this Court craves leave to refer to observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of M.S.Sanjay vs. Indian Bank and others, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 368. Paragraphs no.9 and 10 being relevant for the present purpose, are being reproduced hereinbelow for benefit:-
"9. It is well settled that interference by the Writ Court for mere infraction of any statutory provision or norms, if such in-fraction has not resulted in injustice is not a matter of course. In the case of Shiv Shanker Dal Mills v. State of Haryana reported in (1980) 2 SCC 437, the dealers in that case had paid market fees at the increased rate of 3%, which was raised from the original 2 per cent under Haryana Act 22 of 1977. The excess of 1 per cent over the original rate was declared ultra vires by this Court in the case of Kewal Krishna Puri v. State of Punjab reported in (1980) 1 SCC 416. The excess of 1 per cent over the original rate having been declared ultra vires, became refundable to the respective dealers from whom they were recovered by the Market Committee concerned. The demand for refund of the excess amounts illegally recovered from them not having been complied with, the dealers filed Writ Petitions under Article 32 and Article 226 of the Constitution for a direction to that effect to the Market Committee concerned. The Market Committees contended that although the refund of the excess collections might Page 8 of 14 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 21:57:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9498/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined be legally due to the dealers, many of them had in turn recovered this excess percentage from the next purchasers. While disposing of the petition and laying down guidelines, this Court held as under:
"Article 226 grants an extraordinary remedy, which is essentially discretionary, although founded on legal injury. It is perfectly open for the court, exercising this flexible power, to pass such order as public interest dictates and equity projects. Courts of equity may, and frequently do, go much further both to give and withhold relief in furtherance of the public interest than they are accustomed to go where only private interests are involved. Accordingly, the granting or withholding of relief may properly be dependent upon considerations as of public interest."
10. It has been rightly observed that legal formulations cannot be enforced divorced from the realities of the fact situation of the case. While administering law it is to be tempered with equity and if the equitable situation demands after setting right the legal formulations not to take it to the logical end, the High Court would be failing in its duty if it does not notice equitable consideration and mould the final order in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction. Any other approach would render the High Court a normal Court of Appeal, which it is not. It is a settled principle of law that the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is discretionary in nature and in a given case, even if some action or order challenged in the petition is found to be illegal and invalid, the High Court while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction thereunder can refuse to upset it with a view to doing substantial justice between the parties. "
6.2. From the above quoted portion, it would clearly appear that the law with regard to exercise of writ jurisdiction being that the same is an extraordinary remedy which is Page 9 of 14 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 21:57:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9498/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined discretionary and the writ Court would not interfere for infraction of a statutory provision or norms if such infraction has not resulted in any injustice. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further observed that the legal formulations could not be enforced divorced from the reality of the fact situation of a case and whereas, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has further observed that in a given case, even if some action or order under challenge is found to be illegal or invalid, the High Court would be well justified in refusing to interfere in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction with a view to doing substantial justice between the parties.
7. While this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no infraction whatsoever of any statutory provisions or norms as could be established by the petitioners herein, even otherwise, to this Court, it would appear that the presence is not a case which would require interference at the ends of this Court more particularly in exercise of discretionary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7.1. To this Court, the petitioners are not able to demonstrate any justifiable prejudice whatsoever more particularly upon the State Authorities taking a decision that Page 10 of 14 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 21:57:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9498/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined the teachers who are senior by virtue of their date of appointment should be given charge of head teachers as against teachers who might be seniors in the school or district. To this Court, it is a completely unjustifiable stand which is taken by the petitioners herein who have worked for number of years as the employees of the State Government to state that they would not be open for accepting a responsibility nay an honour which is bestowed upon them by the State Government. In a school where otherwise the petitioners having accepted an inter-district transfer are placed at the bottom of the seniority list, the petitioners are given an opportunity to serve the government as an In-Charge Head Teacher and whereas, the petitioners have thought it fit to approach this Court for issuance of a writ to declare that the action of the State Government is bad in law. To this Court, it would appear that the petitioners are those class of persons who only fight for their rights without accepting any responsibility whatsoever. To this Court, such conduct on the part of the petitioners is required to be deprecated. 7.2. To this Court, it would appear that the State Government to ensure that the administration of the schools does not Page 11 of 14 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 21:57:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9498/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined suffer upon a head teacher vacating his position on account of the retirement, transfer etc. are giving charge of the said position to a person who has otherwise worked in the system for more number of years and who would be more experienced, who otherwise in the normal scheme of things would not be entitled. The petitioners would, in the normal course of things, be senior as compared to teachers who are already working in the school, yet, on account of the fact that the petitioners have accepting the inter-district transfer, by virtue of policy of the State Government, are placed at the bottom of the seniority list, yet, the State requiring the petitioners to use their experience to man the post of Head Teacher In-Charge, to this Court, there is nothing illegal, irregular or unjustifiable in the stand of the State. 7.3. To this Court, it would appear as noticed herein above, that while there is no infraction of any statutory provision and the petitioners could not establish any prejudice much less any injustice, it would also appear that interfering in the present set of petitions would lay down a wrong precedent inasmuch as the petitioners who otherwise are government servants and are required to follow the lawful instructions of Page 12 of 14 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 21:57:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9498/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined the government authorities are trying to evade their responsibilities.
7.4. Again, though such an argument would not have been available, yet, the schools in which the petitioners are working are not having large number of students and consequently, large number of teaching and non-teaching staff. As noted hereinabove, the schools concerned are comparatively smaller schools with less than 150 students if the school is for class 1 to 5 and less than 100 if the school is for class 6 to 8. Thus, the petitioners are trying to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court questioning the decision of the State to give charge of the head teacher to schools having such less number of students, in other words, the burden on account of such additional charge upon the petitioners being negligible.
8. To this Court, it would appear that interfering in the present petition would be completely out of the place and whereas, to this Court, it would appear that the present petitions does not require this Court to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction. To this Court, it would appear that even if there were any instructions contrary to which the State was acting, then also, the present petitions would not be Page 13 of 14 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 21:57:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9498/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined required to be entertained and whereas, to this Court, since nothing justifiable is being brought forth, no reason whatsoever is shown for interference, hence, all the petitions stand disposed of as rejected in limini.
(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J) Bhoomi Page 14 of 14 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 21:57:54 IST 2025