Gujarat High Court
Kumar Ashokbhai Pandya vs State Of Gujarat on 13 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3506/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3506 of 2020
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J. SHELAT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==========================================================
KUMAR ASHOKBHAI PANDYA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. PRACHI UPADHYAY for MR. VAIBHAV A VYAS(2896) for the
Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR. PARTH PATEL, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER/PP for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 13/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Parth Patel waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Though served, none appeared for the respondent No.3 and as such, the presence of Page 1 of 12 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 03:59:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3506/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/11/2025 undefined respondent No.3 is not required to decide the present matter.
2. With consent of learned Advocates for respective parties, the matter is taken up for hearing.
3. Heard learned Advocate Ms. Prachi Upadhyay for learned Advocate Mr. Vaibhav A. Vyas for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Parth Patel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.
4. The present writ application is filed under Article 14, 16, 21 and 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:
"8. The petitioner respectfully prays that on the basis of the facts and circumstances as mentioned hereinabove and which may be urged at the time of hearing, the Honourable Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent authorities and may be pleased to:-
(A) Quash and set aside the communication dated 24.1.2020, Arinexure-
A to this petition, and consequently restrain the respondent authorities from terminating the service of the petitioner, and (B) Direct the respondent authorities to grant the regular pay-scale of Rs. 8000-13500/- to the petitioner with effect from his passing the Ph.D. i.e. 17.7.2017, and consequently make payment of arrears of pay and allowances to the petitioner with interest at the rate which the Hon'ble Court may consider just and proper in the facts of the case, (C) Pending admission and final disposal of this petition the Honourable Page 2 of 12 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 03:59:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3506/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/11/2025 undefined Court may be pleased to stay the operation, implementation and execution of the impugned communication dated 24.1.2020, Annexure-A to this petition, and/ or (D) Pending admission and final disposal of this petition the Honourable Court may be pleased to restrain the respondent authorities from terminating the service of the petitioner, and/ or (E) Pending admission and final disposal of this petition the Honourable Court may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to maintain status-quo qua the service conditions of the petitioner, and (F) Pending admission and final disposal of this petition the Honourable Court may be pleased to restrain the respondent authorities from making any recovery from the petitioner, and (G) Pending admission and final disposal of this petition the Honourable Court may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for grant the regular pay-scale. (H) Award the cost of this petition, and (1) Grant any other relief or pass any other order which the Honourable Court may consider as just and proper in the facts of the case."
5. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONER:
5.1. At the outset, learned Advocate Ms. Upadhyay would submit that the impugned communication dated 24th January 2020 passed by respondent No.2 herein whereby, decision taken to terminate the service of petitioner, is ex facie erroneous, perverse, contrary to condition No.18 of N.O.C., issued in Page 3 of 12 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 03:59:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3506/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/11/2025 undefined favour of the respondent No.3 - College thereby allowed the college to appoint "Assistant Professor (Vocal) - Adhyapak Sahayak (Vocal)".
5.2. Learned Advocate Ms. Upadhyay would further submit that as per condition No.18 of the N.O.C. dated 9th March 2007, which is placed reliance upon by respondent No.2 while terminating the service of petitioner, it is nowhere whispered in such condition that on not getting Ph.D. Degree within five years from the date of appointment by petitioner, his service requires to be terminated. So, such decision of respondent authority requires to be quashed and set-aside by this Court. 5.3. Learned Advocate Ms. Upadhyay would respectfully submit that neither appointment order of petitioner stipulates such condition nor in fact condition No.18 of N.O.C. dated 9th March 2007 issued by respondent No.2 in favour of the respondent No.3 stipulate any such condition of termination, in a case where petitioner did not obtain Ph.D. degree within stipulated period. It is respectfully submitted that when impugned decision is dehors such N.O.C. and so also passed erroneously, this Court must exercise its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash and set-aside such Page 4 of 12 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 03:59:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3506/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/11/2025 undefined arbitrary decision of respondent authority. 5.4. Learned Advocate Ms. Upadhyay would further submit that in the year 2017, the petitioner in fact awarded a degree of Ph.D. and as such, case of the petitioner to get regular pay scale was in fact forwarded by respondent No.3 to respondent No.2 on 28th November 2017, but instead of taking any positive decision on such proposal, petitioner was served with impugned communication thereby his service sought to be terminated. It is submitted that at the given point of time, petitioner could not complete his Ph.D. due to non-availability of guide and in fact, extension sought for by petitioner was duly granted. All these facts not in dispute as nothing contrary brought by respondents on record.
5.5. So making the above submissions, learned Advocate Ms. Upadhyay would request this Court to allow the present writ application by quashing and set-aside the impugned communication dated 24th January, 2020, whereby decision taken to terminate service of petitioner.
6. SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENT NO.1:
6.1. Per contra, learned AGP Mr.Patel would submit that there is Page 5 of 12 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 03:59:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3506/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/11/2025 undefined no error committed by respondent No. 2 while directing respondent No. 3 to pass the an order of termination, vide its impugned communication dated 24th January 2020, inasmuch as, the petitioner having not fulfilled condition No. 18 of the N.O.C. granted by respondent No. 2 in favor of respondent No. 3. It is submitted that as per condition No. 18 of the N.O.C., an Assistant Professor (Adhyapak Sahayak) appointed by respondent No. 3 requires to obtain a degree of Ph.D. within five years, with further extension of one year. As the petitioner having not obtained Ph.D. degree within such period of time, the respondent authority well within its right to terminate the service of the petitioner.
6.2. Learned AGP Mr. Patel would further submit that when the proposal sent by respondent No. 3 on 28th November 2017 to grant regular benefits to the petitioner, having obtained Ph.D. degree, but it was not brought to the notice of the respondent authority by college concerned that the petitioner failed to obtain Ph.D. within the requisite period of time. It is submitted that the principle of natural justice was also observed by giving personal opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Thus, no grievance survived of petitioner.
Page 6 of 12 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 03:59:45 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3506/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/11/2025 undefined 6.3. So, according to learned AGP Mr. Patel, this Court should not interfere with the impugned decision of the respondent authority communicated to respondent No.3 vide its impugned communication dated 24th January 2020.
7. No other and further submissions are being made.
8. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and after going through the documents placed on record and previous order passed by this Court, following emerges;
8.1. The respondent No. 2 accorded its sanction - N.O.C. in favour of respondent No. 3 to appoint Assistant Professor - Adhyapak Sahayak vide its communication dated 9th March 2007 on several conditions. The appointment of petitioner on post of Adhyapak Sahayak (Vocal), pursuance of said N.O.C. 8.2. As per condition No. 18, it would suggest that any such Assistant Professor - Adhyapak Sahayak appointed on a fixed pay would not entitle to receive any other pay and/or allowances till five years. It further observed in such condition that on successfully completing five years of such services and Adhyapak Sahayak gets Ph.D. degree within such period, Page 7 of 12 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 03:59:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3506/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/11/2025 undefined thereafter, on analyzing his services, if found suitable, he will be appointed on a regular pay scale.
8.3. The plain reading of condition No. 18 of the aforesaid N.O.C. dated 9th March 2007 nowhere whispered that such Adhyapak Sahayak if failed to get Ph.D. degree within five years or any extended period, then, requires to be terminated from his services.
8.4. Having unable to complete and obtain Ph.D. degree within five years of his appointment, petitioner sought for extension of time to complete his Ph.D., as according to petitioner, due to non-availability of guide, he could not complete his Ph.D. in time, such extension readily accepted by respondent No.3 college then such request forwarded to office of respondent No.2 vide its office letter dated 27th August, 2014. 8.5. Thereafter, petitioner conferred with degree of Ph.D. on 17th July 2017 and his case for regular pay scale forwarded by respondent No.3 college to respondent No.2 vide its communication letter dated 28th November 2017. The same was not considered by respondent No.2, instead took aforesaid decision of termination of service of petitioner. Page 8 of 12 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 03:59:45 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3506/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/11/2025 undefined 8.6. The impugned decision taken by respondent No. 2, communicated through its letter dated 24th January 2020 to respondent No. 3 - College, would suggest that as the petitioner failed to obtain decree of Ph.D. within five years from his appointment in respondent No. 3 - College, his service is ordered to be terminated.
8.7. This Court vide its order dated 7th February 2020, having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances germane from the record, granted ad-interim relief, whereby, directed the respondent not to terminate the service of the petitioner.
9. If this Court analysis the entire set of facts germen on record and see the reply of the respondent authority, which unable to meet any of the submissions so made by the petitioner in this petition, inasmuch as, unable to substantiate the reason weighed with the respondent authority when ordered the termination of the petitioner.
10. In fact, I have minutely gone through reply submitted by the respondent, but unable to find any good reason assigned by the respondent, thereby, it can sustain its decision communicated to respondent No. 3 vide its impugned communication dated Page 9 of 12 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 03:59:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3506/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/11/2025 undefined 24th January 2020. As observed hereinabove and as such, the fact remain that nowhere in aforementioned condition No. 18 of the N.O.C. remotely suggests the termination of Adhyapak Sahayak, follows on not obtaining Ph.D. degree in time.
11. In view of the aforesaid facts and above stated reasons, the impugned communication dated 24th January 2020, issued by respondent No. 2 to respondent No. 3, thereby, directed respondent No. 3 - College to terminate the service of the petitioner, requires to be interfered with by this Court while exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, having found such decision not only erroneous, perverse, but arbitrary in nature, thereby, violative of Article 14, 16 and also 21 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the impugned communication dated 24th January 2020 is hereby quashed and set aside.
12. At the same time, so far as prayer No. B of para-8 made in the present petition is concerned, when proposal of respondent No.3 dated 28th November, 2017 forwarded to respondent No.2 to grant such benefit was remain pending when impugned communication issued by respondent No.2, in this background of facts, according to my view, it would be more desirable and Page 10 of 12 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 03:59:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3506/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/11/2025 undefined appropriate that respondent No.2 takes appropriate decision on such proposal. Thus, at this stage, aforesaid relief not granted by this Court.
13. In view of foregoing reasons, following conclusion and direction;
13.1. The impugned communication dated 24th January 2020 no longer survives, having quashed by this Court as aforesaid. 13.2. In view of aforesaid, now respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are hereby directed to consider the proposal of respondent No.3 dated 28th November, 2017 forwarded to respondent No.2 (Annexure-H), in turn consider the case of the petitioner for regular pay scale, as undisputedly, the petitioner possessed degree of Ph.D. w.e.f. 17th July 2017.
13.3. The appropriate reasoned order in this regard shall be passed by the concerned respondents on or before 31st December 2025, either granting or not granting benefit of regular pay scale to petitioner. The copy of such decision shall be provided to the petitioner.
14. It goes without saying that if such decision of the respondents not found in favour of the petitioner, it is open for petitioner to Page 11 of 12 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 03:59:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3506/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/11/2025 undefined challenge such decision before the appropriate Court/Tribunal, in accordance with law.
15. Further, when this Court has already quashed the impugned communication dated 24th January 2020 issued by respondent No. 2, the service of the petitioner, protected by the interim order of this Court dated 7th February 2020, should not be disturbed without due process of law by the respondent.
16. In view of the foregoing conclusion, the present writ application is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. Direct service is permitted.
(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J) NILESH Page 12 of 12 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 03:59:45 IST 2025