Gujarat High Court
Dr Maheshkumar Daljibhai Chaudhary vs Hasmukh Patel Or His Successor In Office on 22 September, 2025
Author: A.S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/587/2025 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONTEMPT) NO. 587 of
2025
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL/397/2022
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION/7791/2018
=============================================
DR MAHESHKUMAR DALJIBHAI CHAUDHARY & ORS.
Versus
HASMUKH PATEL OR HIS SUCCESSOR IN OFFICE & ORS.
=============================================
Appearance:
MR JAYRAJ CHAUHAN, ADVOCATE for MR AMIT C NANAVATI(1384) for
the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3
MR AAKASH GUPTA, AGP for the Opponent(s) No. 2
MS MANISHA L SHAH, SENIOR ADVOCATE with
MR CHAITANYA S JOSHI(5927) AND MS HILONI S. MEHTA, for the
Opponent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Opponent(s) No. 3
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
Date : 22/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1. The present application has been filed under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for willful and deliberate defiance of the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.02.2024 passed in the captioned appeal.
2. Learned advocate Mr.Jayraj Chauhan, appearing for the applicants - original appellants, has submitted that the directions issued by the Division Bench in paragraph No.6.9 of the impugned order, requiring consideration of the case of the appellants for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor (Physics), have not been complied with and the applicants Page 1 of 5 Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 22:03:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/587/2025 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined have not been appointed. It is urged that the respondents may be prosecuted for contempt of Court under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
3. Per contra, learned Senior Advocate Ms.Manisha Lavkumar, appearing for the respondent No.1 has submitted that there has been no willful or deliberate disobedience of the directions issued by the Division Bench. It is submitted by her that pursuant to the directions of this Court, the respondent- authorities undertook the requisite exercise and it was found that no post was available under the recruitment process of 2016-2017. The recruitment processes were held twice, however, all posts have already been filled up. The applicants participated in the recruitment processes held in 2018-2019 and 2020-21, after they were declared unsuccessful in the recruitment process of 2016-17, but they have not disclosed these facts before this Court hence, it is a clear suppression of the material facts. Consequently, the respondent - Commission appointed other candidates, and due to non-availability of the posts, the applicants could not be appointed.
4. In response to the aforesaid submissions, learned advocate Mr.Chauhan, appearing for the applicants has submitted that the stand of the respondents cannot be sustained, since there was a stay operating in a writ petition being Special Civil Application No.15463 of 2017, filed by third parties challenging the recruitment of 2017. It is submitted that in view of such stay, certain posts remained vacant, and therefore, the applicants are required to be appointed on such posts, as per the directions issued by the Division Bench.
Page 2 of 5 Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 22:03:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/587/2025 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined
5. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.
6. The present contempt application emanates from the directions, issued by the Division Bench in paragraph No.6.9 of the impugned order, are under:-
"6.9 The respondent authorities are directed to fill-up all posts as may be available and as prescribed in the Advertisement No. 88/2016-17 for the post of Assistant Professor in Physics subject- without applying for the criteria the minimum qualifying marks prescribed. The respondents shall thus consider the case of the appellants- petitioners for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor (Physics) as per the above observations if they stand on merits and otherwise eligible. The post shall be filled up as may be available."
7. A bare perusal of the directions, it appears that the Division Bench has directed the respondent-authorities to fill up all posts, "as may be available and as described in Advertisement No.88/2016-17 for the post of Assistant Professor in Physics subject". It was further directed that the authorities shall "consider" the case of the appellants, if they are otherwise eligible and stand on merits. A specific direction was also issued to the effect that "the post shall be filled up as may be available."
8. It is not in dispute that subsequent to the recruitment process undertaken in 2016-2017, two more advertisements were issued by the respondent-authorities for filling up the post of Assistant Professor (Physics). The applicants participated in both recruitments but remained unsuccessful. Therefore only in one scenario the directions can be complied with, even after two successive recruitment processes, the Page 3 of 5 Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 22:03:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/587/2025 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined posts under the 2016 and 2017 advertisements still remain available.
9. The respondents, in their affidavit, have categorically clarified that out of 51 vacancies advertised in 2016 for the post of Assistant Professor (Physics), 15 posts were filled up and 36 posts remained vacant. Subsequently, by the Government Resolution dated 14.10.2024, with reference to the earlier Government Resolution dated 07.06.2011, the remaining 16 vacant posts of Assistant Professor (Physics) were abolished. It is further stated that despite abolition, two Professors were recruited in excess and are presently serving on supernumerary posts. Additionally, four posts occupied by ad-hoc candidates are to be replaced by surplus employees already appointed, and a proposal to that effect has been forwarded by the Deputy Director of Commissioner of Higher Education to the Deputy Secretary, Education Department on 29.03.2025.
10. In view of the above, the appellants have failed to demonstrate before this Court that any sanctioned posts of Assistant Professor in Physics from the 2016 and 2017 recruitment processes continued to exist, after the subsequent recruitment exercises. In light of these facts, this Court cannot delve further into the issue of filling up such posts.
11. It would be apposite to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of V. Senthur and another Vs. M. Vijaykumar, IAS, Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and another, [2021-SCALE-11-566]. The Supreme Page 4 of 5 Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 22:03:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/587/2025 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined Court has held thus:-
"14. There can be no quarrel with the proposition that in a contempt jurisdiction, the court will not travel beyond the original judgment and direction; neither would it be permissible for the court to issue any supplementary or incidental directions, which are not to be found in the original judgment and order. The court is only concerned with the willful or deliberate non-compliance of the directions issued in the original judgment and order."
12. Thus, it is held that there can be no quarrel with the proposition that in a contempt jurisdiction, the Court will not travel beyond the original judgment and direction, neither would it be permissible for the Court to issue any supplementary or incidental directions, which are not to be found in the original judgment and order. The Court is only concerned with the willful or deliberate non - compliance of the directions issued in the original judgment and order.
13. In view of the specific directions issued by the Coordinate Bench to only consider the case of the appellants and to fill up the posts, if available, under the recruitment process of 2016- 2017, the present contempt proceedings stand closed. However, liberty is reserved in favour of the applicants to initiate appropriate proceedings, if they so desire, challenging the subsequent actions of the respondents.
Sd/-
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J) Sd/-
(L. S. PIRZADA, J) MAHESH/42 Page 5 of 5 Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 22:03:36 IST 2025