Gujarat High Court
Khamishabhai Sumarbhai Hothi vs State Of Gujarat on 24 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9020/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9020 of 2014
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9021 of 2014
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9050 of 2014
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
4
==========================================================
KHAMISHABHAI SUMARBHAI HOTHI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS REENA KAMANI FOR MR PH PATHAK(665) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR PARTH PATEL, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 24/11/2025
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned advocate Ms.Reena Kamani for learned advocate Mr.P.H.Pathak appearing for the petitioner/s and Mr.Parth Patel, Assistant Government Pleader for respondents.
2. All these batch of petitions having common question involved in it, inasmuch as, all the petitioners are complaining of their respective reversion order passed by respondents from the Post of PSI (ad hoc) (Unarmed) to ASI (Unarmed). So, Page 1 of 19 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Wed Nov 26 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 26 21:20:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9020/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined seeing the commonality of the issue involved in all these batch of petitions, the same are heard and decided by way of this common judgment.
FACTUAL MATRIX
3. To better understand the factual matrix of the case, the facts of Special Civil Application No. 9020 of 2014 are taken which are as follows:-
3.1. The petitioner appears to have been appointed as a Constable in Rajkot City on 22.04.1974, later on, promoted to the Post of Head Constable on 01.10.1992, and then after on the Post of ASI (Assistant Sub Inspector). Subsequently promoted on the post of PSI (ad hoc) vide his promotion order dated 31.08.2012.
3.2. The aforesaid appointment order of petitioner clearly states that it is a temporary promotion, whereby, he will neither claim any seniority nor have any right to continue on such Post. It is clearly mentioned in the order that as and Page 2 of 19 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Wed Nov 26 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 26 21:20:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9020/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined when regular appointment done on the Post of PSI or any administrative contingency arise, he will revert back to his original Post i.e., ASI.
3.3. It further appears that as petitioner going to be superannuated on 31.05.2013, having taken such fact into account being an administrative exigency, petitioner was revert back to his original Post i.e., ASI with effect from 30.04.2013.
Such order passed by respondent No. 2 herein on 25.05.2013 which is impugned in the petition.
3.4. All petitioners having accepted such impugned reversion order, thereby, superannuated from their respective services as ASI. After passing of one year, they have challenged such impugned decision of respondent authority by way of these petitions.
3.5. All the petitioners are claiming similar relief as stated hereinabove; therefore, the fact of Special Civil Application Page 3 of 19 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Wed Nov 26 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 26 21:20:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9020/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined No.9020 of 2014 is taken into account and following relief has been prayed in the aforesaid petition, which reads as under:-
"[A] This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue an order, writ in the nature of mandamus and/or Certiorary, or other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the impugned decision on the part of Respondents dated 25.4.2013 to revert the petitioner from the Post of Police Sub-Inspector as illegal, unjust, arbitrary violative of Art 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India and be pleased to quash and set aside the same and direct the respondents to treat the petitioner as continuously working on the Post of Police Sub- Inspector till retirement and grant all consequential benefits to the petitioner and further direct respondents to pay all arrears to the petitioner with 12% interest and direct respondent no.1 to recover the amount from the personal pay of the erring officers.
[B] Be pleased to declare the impugned decision to revert the petitioner is malafide to deprive the petitioner of retirement benefits and consequential benefits of Police Sub-Inspector, therefore, declare the same in violative of Art 14 of the Constitution of India.
[C].. Be pleased to direct the respondents to fix the pension of petitioner in the salary payable to the Post of Police Sub-Inspector and accordingly direct respondents to grant all consequential benefits to petitioner with 12% interest.
[D].. Be pleased to direct the respondents to pay special cost and compensation to the petitioner and further direct respondent no.1 to fix the responsibility on the erring officer and recover the amount of interest, cost and compensation from the personal pay of the erring officer.
[E].. Pending admission and final disposal of this petition be pleased to direct the respondents to review the payment of retirement benefits, including fixation of pension of petitioner as Police Sub-Inspector and direct to re-fix pension and all retirement benefits of the petitioner treating him retired on the Post of Police Sub-Inspector.
[F].. Pending admission and final disposal of this petition be pleased to direct the respondents to deposit the difference of Page 4 of 19 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Wed Nov 26 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 26 21:20:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9020/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined amount before this Hon. Court, which is payable to the petitioner treating him working on the Post of police sub inspector.
[G].. Any other and further relief this Hon. Court deem fit and proper in interest of justice."
SUBMISSION OF THE PETITIONERS
4. Learned advocate Ms. Kamani for learned advocate Mr.P.H.Pathak would respectfully submit that promotion order of petitioners allowed him to work as PSI ( ad hoc) and only in two contingencies, i.e., regular PSI appointed or any administrative exigency, they could have been revert back to the Post of ASI from where they were promoted. Whereas, none of such conditions arose in the case of petitioners, inasmuch as, neither any regular PSI got appointed on the Post nor any administrative exigency shown by respondent authority while passing impugned order of reversion. 4.1. Learned advocate Ms. Kamani would respectfully submit that in similarly situated persons like petitioners, in past, respondents have allowed such promotes ( ad hoc) to allow them to superannuate on the Post of PSI ( ad hoc) and Page 5 of 19 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Wed Nov 26 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 26 21:20:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9020/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined there was no reversion order came to be passed in those cases. It is submitted that despite submitting their order of superannuation i.e. promote (ad hoc), no specific reply filed by respondent to counter such argument.
4.2. Nonetheless, learned advocate Ms. Kamani would further submit that after so many years, respondent-State, having found their mistake, appears to have passed a reversion order in the year, 2025 in those cases, which is nothing but an eye wash to overcome the legitimate right of the petitioners to get retirement benefit on the Post of PSI. 4.3. Learned advocate Ms. Kamani would further submit that when respondents have given different treatment to petitioner than other similarly situated person, thereby, violated Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and such arbitrary action needs to be interfered with by this Court while exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Page 6 of 19 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Wed Nov 26 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 26 21:20:00 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9020/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined 4.4. So making above submission, learned advocate Ms. Kamani would request this Court to allow the present petitions. SUBMISSION OF THE RESPONDENTS
5. Learned AGP Mr. Patel would respectfully state that as such, there is no merit in the present petitions, in as much as, neither any fundamental right nor any violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India by respondents. It is respectfully submitted that all the petitioners have waited for quite long before approaching this Court and as such, to allow their reversion order to operate at given point of time, thereby, they have no right to question it. 5.1. Learned AGP Mr. Patel would respectfully submit that promotion order of all petitioners was conditional one, thereby, they have no indefeasible right to hold the Post of PSI when promoted. It is respectfully submitted that as per promotion order, it was categorically observed that in a case where any regular selectee on the Post of PSI appointed or any Page 7 of 19 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Wed Nov 26 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 26 21:20:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9020/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined administrative contingency arise, they will revert back to their original position i.e., ASI.
5.2. Learned AGP Mr.Patel would respectfully submit that when promotion was on ad hoc basis given to all petitioners and having found that they are reaching the age of superannuation, due to such exigency, reverted back to their original position, thus, no fault can be found with impugned order.
5.3. Learned AGP Mr. Patel would respectfully submit that as per settled legal position of law, equality cannot be claimed for any illegality. It is submitted that some instances cited by petitioners by placing few orders of other so-called similarly situated persons, wherein, though they were promoted on the higher Posts i.e., PSI (ad hoc) and not revert back to their original post before their age of superannuation, would not, ipso facto, entitled the petitioners to claim equity / parity with them.
Page 8 of 19 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Wed Nov 26 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 26 21:20:00 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9020/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined 5.4. Learned AGP Mr.Patel has placed on record few orders of reversion passed by respondent No. 2 herein dated 06.08.2025, in the cases of other similarly situated persons, whose instances have been relied upon/cited by petitioners. On request being made of learned AGP Mr. Patel, those orders are taken on record.
5.5. Learned AGP Mr.Patel would further submit that as per circular dated 18.06.1998 issued by Director General of Police, State of Gujarat at Ahmedabad produced with the reply, wherein also it has been clearly mentioned that in a case where any ad hoc appointment on the Post of PSI requires to be given, it will have to attach with a specific condition. It is submitted that such conditions enumerated in the promotion order of each petitioner herein. It is respectfully submitted that when it was found by department that petitioners are going to superannuate in near future, in that circumstances, any reversion order passed, no illegality can be found, inasmuch as, as per settled legal position of law, the Page 9 of 19 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Wed Nov 26 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 26 21:20:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9020/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined petitioners have no right to retain on such promotional Post as their initial appointment on such Post is on ad hoc basis. 5.6. To buttress his argument he would rely upon the decision reported in State of Bombay vs. F.A.Abraham reported in AIR (0) 1961 SC 794 and in the case of Mohammed Yakub Dalelkhan vs. State of Gujarat and others passed in Special Civil Application No. 12026 of 2014 dated 23.09.2014. 5.7. Making the above submission, learned AGP Mr.Patel would request this Court to dismiss the present writ petitions. ANALYSIS
6. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and after perusing the facts and the prayers so made in this petition, following emerges:-
6.1. It remains undisputed on record that petitioners had been given promotion on the Post of PSI on ad hoc basis. The order of promotion of each petitioner clearly indicates that it was conditional promotion on purely ad hoc / temporary basis.Page 10 of 19 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Wed Nov 26 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 26 21:20:00 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9020/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined It is clearly stipulated that petitioners have no right to claim any seniority and / or to continue on such Posts. 6.2. On happing of either of two contingencies i.e., either on appointing regular selectee on the Post of PSI or in case of any administrative exigency, the petitioners will revert back to their original Post i.e., ASI. All petitioners having approached their age of superannuation, respondent thought it fit to revert back them on their original Post i.e., ASI. 6.3. It is not in dispute that order of reversion was passed in April, 2013 whereas the present petitions filed in April, 2014. No explanation worth name coming forth on the part of petitioners as to why there is so much delay in filing these petitions, especially, when all petitioners allowed themselves to be superannuated on the Post of ASI.
6.4. This Court could have dismissed these petitions on the ground of delay/laches, but it appears that all these batch of petitions are already admitted then, in this peculiar facts and Page 11 of 19 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Wed Nov 26 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 26 21:20:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9020/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined circumstances, this Court would not like to go further deep into this aspect, rather left the issue of delay/laches kept open, to be decided in other good case.
7. Be that as it may, the facts remained that order of promotion of petitioner was a conditional one and having noticed aforesaid conditions of order of promotion, thus, there was no indefeasible right available with petitioners to claim any continuity on the Post of PSI.
8. It is true that regularly selected candidate were not appointed on the Post of PSI, when order of reversion of petitioners passed by respondent-authority. Nonetheless, an administrative exigency entitled respondent to revert the petitioners back to their original Post. When respondent authority having found that petitioners are going to reach to the age of superannuation, if any administrative decision was taken by the respondent authority to revert them back to their Page 12 of 19 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Wed Nov 26 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 26 21:20:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9020/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined original position i.e., ASI, no illegality can be attached with such decision impugned in this petition.
9. It is always open for respondent-authority being employer to decide administrative exigency and discretion also left open to employer to use it for any better administration or otherwise. At least, this Court while exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot decide such administrative exigency for which, petitioners reverted back to their original post i.e. ASI. The Court should ordinarily refrained itself from interfering with any executive decision unless shown it as arbitrary, violation of any fundamental rights of petitioners or like etc.. Even it is settled law that right to claim promotion is not considered as fundamental right, of course right to be considered for promotion is one of facet of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India being fundamental right of employee.
Page 13 of 19 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Wed Nov 26 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 26 21:20:00 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9020/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined
10. Thus, in view of aforesaid, there is no merit in the claim of petitioners that they were wrongly reverted back to their original post from post of PSI (ad hoc).
11. As can be seen and as argued by learned advocate Ms. Kamani appearing for the petitioner that in a case of similarly situated persons, in past, respondents authority have allowed other persons to retire on the Post of PSI ( ad hoc) and not reverted them to their original Post. To counter such argument, learned AGP has placed on record few orders passed by respondent No. 2 herein dated 06.08.2025, thereby, an order of reversion, albeit passed after allowing them to reach to the age of superannuation. In view of above, aforesaid argument of petitioner no longer survives.
12. Furthermore, it is settled legal position of law that merely any undue advantage or any illegality committed by respondent, in the case of other similarly situated person like petitioners, no equality can be claimed by petitioners to grant Page 14 of 19 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Wed Nov 26 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 26 21:20:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9020/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined such relief/benefit, which in fact appears to be contrary to the circular of the respondent authority.
13. It would apt to refer and rely upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tinku vs. State of Haryana and Others reported in 2024 SCC ONLINE SC 3292, wherein it has been held as under:-
"11. The very idea of equality enshrined in Article 14 is a concept clothed in positivity based on law. It can be invoked to enforce a claim having sanctity of law. No direction can, therefore, be issued mandating the State to perpetuate any illegality or irregularity committed in favour of a person, an individual, or even a group of individuals which is contrary to the policy or instructions applicable. Similarly, passing of an illegal order wrongfully conferring some right or claim on someone does not entitle a similar claim to be put forth before a court nor would court be bound to accept such plea. The court will not compel the authority to repeat that illegality over again. If such claims are entertained and directions issued, that would not only be against the tenets of the justice but would negate its ethos resulting in the law being a causality culminating in anarchy and lawlessness. The Court cannot ignore the law, nor can it overlook the same to confer a right or a claim that does not have legal sanction. Equity cannot be extended, and that too negative to confer a benefit or advantage without legal basis or justification."
(emphasis supplied)
14. At this stage, it would also be pertinent to note the relevant observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of F.A. Abraham (supra) wherein observed and held thus:- Page 15 of 19 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Wed Nov 26 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 26 21:20:00 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9020/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined "5. We are unable to agree with the observation in M. A. Waheed's case(1) that when a person officiating in a Post, is reverted for unsatisfactory work, that reversion amounts to a reduction in rank. A person officiating in a Post has no right to hold it for all times. He may have been given the officiating Post because the permanent incumbent was not available, having gone on leave or being away for some other reasons. When the permanent incumbent comes back, the person officiating is naturally reverted to his original Post. This is no reduction in rank for it was the very term on which he had been given the officiating Post. Again, sometimes a person is given an officiating Post to test his suitability to be made permanent in it later. Here again. it is an implied term of the officiating appointment that if he is found unsuitable, he would have to go back. If, therefore, the appropriate authorities find him unsuitable for the higher rank and then revert him back to his original lower rank, the action taken is in accordance with the terms on which the officiating Post had been given. It is in no way a punishment and is not, therefore, a reduction in rank. It has been held by this Court in Parshotam Lal Dhingra vs. Union of India, 1958 SCR 828 that, "It is, therefore, quite clear that appointment to a permanent Post in a Government service, either on probation, or on an officiating basis, from the very nature of such employment, itself of a very transitory character and, in the absence of any special contract or specific rule regulating the conditions of the service, the implied term of such appointment, under the ordinary law of master and servant, is that it is terminable at any time. In short, in the case of an appointment to a permanent Post in a Government service on probation or on an officiating basis, the servant so appointed does not acquire any substantive right to the Post and consequently cannot complain, any more than a private servant employed on probation or on an officiating basis can do, if his service is terminated at any time."
The respondent had of course no right to the Post of Deputy Superintendent of Police to which he had been given an officiating appointment and he does not contend to the contrary. He cannot therefore, without more, complain if he is sent back to his original Post. This is what happened in this case even if it be taken that the Page 16 of 19 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Wed Nov 26 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 26 21:20:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9020/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined respondent had been reverted to his original rank because he was found unsuitable for the higher rank to which he had been given an officiating appointment."
(emphasis supplied) 14.1. The ratio of the aforesaid decision would clearly indicate that a person officiating on a Post has no right to hold it for all times. He may have been given the officiating Post because the permanent incumbent was not available, having gone on leave or being away for some other reasons. When the permanent incumbent comes back, the person officiating is naturally reverted to his original Post. This would not be considered as a reduction in rank for it was the very term on which he had been given the officiating Post. 14.2. One of the previous judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Parshotam Lal Dhingra vs. Union of India reported in 1958 SCR 828 was referred in it, wherein also, it has been so held that any appointment on officiating basis is very transitory in character and, in the absence of any special contract or special rule regulating the conditions of the service, Page 17 of 19 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Wed Nov 26 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 26 21:20:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9020/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined tab implied term of such appointment, under the ordinary law of master and servant, is that it is terminable at any time.
15. Likewise, in case of Mohammed Yakub Dalekhan (supra), the coordinate Bench of this Court having referred Rule 85 of Gujarat Police Manual, 1975, in almost identical factual scenario upheld the decision of respondent-State, whereby reverted the petitioner from the Post of PSI ( ad hoc) to ASI. The ratio of aforesaid decision of this Court would also applicable and helpful to the arguments of learned AGP Mr. Patel.
16. Thus, in light of the aforesaid factual scenario of the case and having applied the ratio of the aforesaid decisions to the case on hand, I am of the view that there is no substance in the argument so canvassed by learned advocate Ms. Kamani and as such, there is no error much less any gross error of law committed by respondent when reverted the petitioner back to their original position from the Post of PSI (ad hoc) to ASI. Page 18 of 19 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Wed Nov 26 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 26 21:20:00 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9020/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined CONCLUSION
17. In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any fundamental right of petitioners being violated by respondents and having so observed that merely some illegality committed by respondents in the cases of other similarly situated persons like petitioners, which in fact later on corrected, in any case, no equality can be claimed by petitioners.
18. In view of the foregoing reasons and conclusion, there is no merit found in the present petitions, which require to be dismissed, which are hereby DISMISSED. Rule is discharged. No orders as to costs.
Sd/-
(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J) MOHD MONIS Page 19 of 19 Uploaded by MOHD MONIS(HC01900) on Wed Nov 26 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 26 21:20:00 IST 2025