Gujarat High Court
Goganbhai Nagabhai Madam vs State Of Gujarat on 17 September, 2025
Author: Nikhil S. Kariel
Bench: Nikhil S. Kariel
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/230/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 230 of 2023
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==========================================================
GOGANBHAI NAGABHAI MADAM
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR GAUTAM JOSHI, LR. SR. ADV. with MR. MEHUL A SHARMA and
VYOM H SHAH(9387) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR ADITYA PATHAK, ASST. 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 NIKHIL S. KARIEL
Date : 17/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr.Gautam Joshi appearing with learned advocate Mr.Mehul Sharma and learned advocate Mr.Vyom Shah on behalf of the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Aditya Pathak appearing on behalf of the respondent - State.
2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought for intervention of this Court insofar as setting aside final Page 1 of 10 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 21:32:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/230/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2025 undefined seniority list dated 01.02.2023 published by the respondents.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had been appointed as a Forest Guard vide order dated 12.08.2009 for a fixed period of 5 years on a fixed salary as per the extant policy of the State Government. It is the case of the petitioner that he had cleared the CCC examination from ICT on 13.03.2012 within the contractual / probation period. It is the case of the petitioner that the said certificate having been accepted, the services of the petitioner were regularized w.e.f. 12.08.2014 vide an order dated 29.06.2015. 3.1. It is the case of the petitioner that since the petitioner had been informed after regularization that he would have to clear the CCC examination once again, he had cleared the same on 07.08.2016 from the Saurashtra University. It would appear that while the placement of the petitioner in the seniority list was appropriate upto the year 2020, yet, in the year 2020, to be specific, vide seniority list dated 29.02.2020 reflecting position as on 01.01.2020, the petitioner's seniority had been affected to his detriment on the ground of non- clearance of CCC examination.
Page 2 of 10 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 21:32:12 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/230/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2025 undefined 3.2. It appears that though the petitioner had objected there- against, the same did not yield any results and ultimately, though the seniority of the forest guards had been converted from Zone Level Cadre to State Level Cadre and provisional State Level Seniority List had been published on 01.11.2022, the position of the petitioner had been reflected wrong on the specious ground that the petitioner did not clear the CCC examination. It would appear that the petitioner had objected there-against and while such objections were pending consideration, the present petition had been preferred by the petitioner.
3.3. It would also appear that during the pendency of the petition, a final seniority list had been published without redressing the grievance raised by the petitioner vide seniority list dated 01.02.2023 and whereas, the said final seniority list has also been challenged in the present writ petition by amending the same.
4. Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Gautam Joshi appearing on behalf of the petitioner would submit that the present issue stands covered by two decisions of the Hon'ble Division Benches of this Court. Learned Senior Advocate would firstly Page 3 of 10 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 21:32:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/230/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2025 undefined rely upon decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No.129/2024 dated 15.07.2024 in case of State of Gujarat and Ors. vs. Mahesh Sureshbhai Parmar and Ors., and would submit that the Hon'ble Division Bench has inter alia laid down that an employee who has been regularized in service after completing 5 years' contractual period chould not be terminated from service for non-clearing of CCC examination.
4.1. It is further submitted by learned Senior Advocate that in a decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.376/2021 dated 20.07.2021 in case of State of Gujarat vs. Kodiyatar Manda Amarabhai, the Hon'ble Division Bench has clarified that the Government Resolution dated 23.10.2015 inter alia could not be resorted to with retrospective effect.
4.2. Learned Senior Advocate would further submit that in any case, Government Resolution dated 23.10.2015 lays down that an employee is required to clear the CCC examination within a period of 2 years from the date of confirmation / regularization and whereas, while the petitioner had been regularized in service w.e.f. 12.08.2014, the petitioner had got Page 4 of 10 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 21:32:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/230/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2025 undefined his second CCC certificate from the Saurashtra University on 07.08.2016. It is submitted that under such circumstances, the seniority position of the petitioner could not have been affected to his detriment and whereas, the same was required to be restored more particularly considering that the petitioner had complied with the terms of the Government Resolution dated 23.10.2015.
5. The present petition is vehemently opposed by learned AGP Mr.Pathak who would submit that the petitioner having not passed the requisite examination during the period stipulated by the State Government, it would not be open for the petitioner to now contend that appropriate consequences should not follow.
5.1. To a pointed query by this Court, more particularly as regards the status of the decisions of the Hon'ble Division Benches, learned AGP could not rely upon decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court where either of the decisions have been interfered with.
6. Having considered the submissions made by learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Page 5 of 10 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 21:32:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/230/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2025 undefined learned AGP for the respondent - State, it would appear to this Court that the issue raised in the present petition is covered by the decisions of the Hon'ble Division Benches of this Court referred to hereinabove.
6.1. At the first instance, observations of the Hon'ble Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No.129/2024, more particularly para-26 thereof being relevant, is reproduced hereinbelow for benefit:-
"26. The case of the appellants entirely hinges on the Government Resolution dated 23.10.2015. The same will not apply to the respondents. The appellants have treated the respondents as fresh appointees from 2018-19 by wiping out their entire service from the year 2007, which includes the probation/contractual period. It is also an undisputed fact that the respondents were never terminated from the services on the ground that they had not passed the CCC examination within the prescribed period. The appellants have admitted the validity of the CCC certificates possessed by the respondents at the time of their appointments. The respondents were also regularized and placed in regular pay scale after completion of 5 years contractual period. Thus, the conditions of the Resolution dated 23.10.2015 cannot be invoked, after the respondents were regularized in service. In wake of these undisputed facts, the impugned action of treating the respondents as fresh appointees could have been only taken during their probation/contractual period, and not thereafter. There is no provision of law shown to us, which enables the appellants to take such action against those employees, after they have been regularized in service. The only period/time frame available to the appellants to act or invoke the Government Page 6 of 10 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 21:32:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/230/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2025 undefined instructions/ Resolutions, was during the probation or contractual period, and if the State authorities have failed to do so, they cannot tinker with the seniority and treat the regular employees as fresh appointees. Such an action will amount to putting the cart before the horse, as the regular employees are being treated as fresh appointees with retrospective effect from the date of passing the CCC exams by curtailing the probation period. Thus, the appellants have absolutely acted without application of mind and without realizing the consequences of their orders."
6.2. This Court would further refer to observations of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in decision dated 20.07.2021 in Letters Patent Appeal No.376/2021. Paragraph Nos.27 and 28 of the said decision being relevant for the present purpose, are quoted hereinbelow for benefit:-
"27. On conjoint reading of Notification dated 23.10.2015 which has amended Rule 9A by inserting words "or within a period of two years thereafter"
after the words "contractual basis" under Sub-rule(3) of Rule 9A of Rules, 1967 and Government Resolution dated 23.10.2015 which has substituted conditions no.11(2) and 12(2) of the terms and condition for appointment prescribed in Annexure-I of the Government Resolution dated 4.6.2009 for appointment on the posts of class-III and IV posts on contract basis with fixed pay would mean that Rule 9A(3) is amended to the effect that the employee who is appointed on contractual basis, is required to pass CCC/CCC+ examination for computer knowledge within a period of two years after contractual period is over and on basis of such amendment which has come into effect from 4.6.2009, clause 11(2) and 12(2) of the terms and conditions for appointment on contractual basis in Annexure-I of the Government Page 7 of 10 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 21:32:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/230/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2025 undefined Resolution dated 04.06.2009 have been substituted by Government Resolution dated 23.10.2015. Therefore, it cannot be said that Government Resolution dated 23.10.2015 substituting clauses 11(2) and 12(2) of the terms and conditions for appointment on contractual basis for fixed pay would be applicable with effect from 4.6.2009 making it compulsory for the employees who are appointed on regular basis prior to coming into force of Government Resolution dated 23.10.2015 to pass CCC/CCC+ examination within two years from the date of their regular appointment failing which service of such employee would be terminated.
28. As the terms and conditions of appointment on contractual basis stipulated in Government Resolution dated 4.6.2009 have been substituted by Government Resolution dated 23.10.2015, the Learned Single Judge rightly held that Government Resolution dated 23.10.2015 would be applicable prospectively i.e. from 23.10.2015 and not retrospectively and the concerned employee whose service is regularised as per Government Resolution dated 4.6.2009 as per Rule 9A(3)of the Rules,1967 which is amended by Notification dated 23.10.2015, period of two years is to be considered from the date of Government Resolution dated 23.10.2015 and not from the date of regularisation of such employee."
7. Insofar as the applicability of Government Resolution dated 23.10.2015 is concerned, a bare perusal of the said resolution would reveal that the said resolution inter alia lays down that an employee is required to clear the CCC examination within a period of 2 years from the date of resolution /regularization in service. It would appear in this regard that while the services of the petitioner had been Page 8 of 10 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 21:32:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/230/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2025 undefined regularized w.e.f. 12.08.2014, the petitioner had cleared the CCC examination on 07.08.2016 i.e. within a period of 2 years from the date of regularization.
7.1. Having regard to the position as noticed hereinabove, more particularly considering the same from the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble Division Benches of this Court, it would clearly appear to this Court that upon the petitioner clearing the CCC examination on 07.08.2016, the respondents were required to appropriately modify the seniority position of the petitioner i.e. restore his original seniority, considering the petitioner to be in service w.e.f. 12.08.2009. The respondents were also required to ensure that the petitioner's name is appropriately placed in the seniority list more particularly above the persons who were originally junior to the petitioner in the cadre of Forest Guard.
8. Having regard to the above discussion, observations and conclusions, the following directions, to this Court, would meet with the ends of justice:-
(i) The seniority list of Forest Guard dated 01.11.2023 is Page 9 of 10 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 21:32:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/230/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2025 undefined interfered with to the extent of directing the respondents to restore appropriate seniority position of the petitioner in the seniority list considering his date of appointment as 12.08.2009 and also considering the fact that the petitioner had cleared the CCC examination as per the terms of the Government Resolution dated 23.10.2015.
(ii) The respondents, after complying with the above direction, shall grant all consequential benefits to the present petitioner on the basis of revised placement which shall be on a position above juniors to the petitioner and shall grant promotion and all other ancillary benefits to the petitioner within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
9. With the above observations and directions, the present petition stand disposed of.
(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J) Bhoomi Page 10 of 10 Uploaded by BHOOMI YOGESHKUMAR MISTRY(HC01557) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 21:32:12 IST 2025