Gujarat High Court
Prashantkumar Vrajlal ... vs State Of Gujarat on 20 December, 2022
Bench: A.S. Supehia
C/SCA/5622/2021 ORDER DATED: 20/12/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5622 of 2021
==========================================================
PRASHANTKUMAR VRAJLAL SARTANPARA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
HUNAIZA H QURESHI(8903) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR. EKRAMA H QURESHI(7000) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
DS AFF.NOT FILED (N) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
MS SUMAN J MOTLA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
Date : 20/12/2022
ORAL ORDER
1. The present writ petition has been filed for
quashing and setting aside the Office Order dated
08.03.2021, by which the petitioner, who was
appointed on contractual basis for 11 months, has
been terminated from service. The petitioner has
also sought for quashing and setting aside the
Government Resolution dated 07.02.2020.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he has
been appointed on contractual basis and is
entitled to continuity of service since he has
been rendering service since the year 2014. The
petitioner had undergone regular recruitment
course by the Gujarat Public Services
Commission(GPSC) in the year 2015-16 and
thereafter, he has been appointed on contractual
basis and his services has been extended.
C/SCA/5622/2021 ORDER DATED: 20/12/2022
3. The issue with regard to termination of such
employees by the GPSC and their termination has
been subject matter of challenge in various writ
petitions. By the judgement dated 07.10.2022
passed in Special Civil Application No.18352 of
2019 and allied matters, the Coordinate Bench of
this Court has also considered the aspect of the
termination, which has been affected by reducing
student-teacher ratio in view of the Government
Resolution dated 07.02.2020. The said resolution
was also challenged in such group of petitions.
After hearing both the parties and after
considering the judgements of the Division
Benches of this Court as well as the Apex Court,
the Coordinate Bench by the judgement dated
07.10.2022 has dismissed the writ petitions and
has vacated the interim relief. The Coordinate
Bench of this Court has held thus:
51. The Resolution dated 27.07.2020 has therefore
been issued in that background where a restructuring
has taken place in various 22 disciplines of
Government Polytechnic Colleges where the sanctioned
posts in the Mechanical Branch has reduced from 540
to 450. Out of 540 posts, 425 posts were already
filled in by regularly selected GPSC candidates and
44 were filled in by ad-hoc / contractual Lecturers
leaving a total vacancy of 71. As a result of
reduction of sanctioned posts to 450 and since there
were no vacancies to accommodate 111, GPSC
recommended candidates only 24 (450-425) Lecturers
can and shall be given posting. In such eventuality
43 ad-hoc lecturers shall have to make way leaving
one sanctioned post available.
C/SCA/5622/2021 ORDER DATED: 20/12/2022
52. As pointed out by the judgments of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Subash Chander Marwaha
(Supra) so far as appointment is concerned, it is not
a matter of right. A candidate cannot claim as a
matter of right that the posts advertised must be
filled up.
53. The GPSC as a constitutional authority acts on
the consultation with Government based on the
recommendations seat to it by the Government based on
the vacancy positions and no fault can be found if
the GPSC needs to revise its list based on the
requisitionist needs. There is no erosion of its
constitutional role.
54. For all the aforesaid reasons, Special Civil
Application Nos.2670 of 2021 and 2271 of 2021 are
allowed. Respondent - State is directed to issue
appointment orders to such petitioners within a
period of four weeks from the date of receipt of
certified copy of this Common CAV Judgment. Rule is
made absolute to that extent. Direct Service is
permitted. No costs."
4. Thus, the Coordinate Bench of this Court in
an identical set of facts has upheld the validity
of the Government Resolutions dated 07.02.2020,
29.02.2020 and 27.07.2020. It is not in dispute
that the petitioner has been terminated in view
of the provisions of the Government Resolution
dated 07.02.2020, which has been challenged in
those writ petitions.
5. Learned advocate Mr.Qureshi has submitted
that after all the litigation were over and the
petitioner has filed the writ petition being
Special Civil Application No.19101 of 2022
challenging the revocation of the regular
appointment since during intervening period, it
C/SCA/5622/2021 ORDER DATED: 20/12/2022
is the case of the petitioner that after
undergoing necessary examination, he has been
regularly appointed in view of the Government
Resolution dated 28.07.2017, which was
subsequently revoked by the notification dated
04.02.2021.
6. Learned AGP has submitted that the present
writ petition may not be entertained in view of
the decision of the Coordinate Bench and in view
of the subsequent filing of the writ petition
challenging the action of the State authorities,
by which the appointment of the petitioner has
been revoked vide notification dated 04.02.2021.
7. The aforenoted facts are undisputed. The
petitioner has filed this writ petition
challenging the Government Resolutions dated
07.02.2020 and 27.07.2020, validity of which has
already been upheld by the Coordinate Bench of
this Court in the judgement dated 07.10.2022
passed in Special Civil Application No.18352 of
2019 and allied matters. It is not in dispute
that the petitioner has been terminated in view
of the aforesaid resolutions. The petitioner was
appointed on contractual basis and accordingly,
he has been terminated.
8. Thus, the present writ petition deserves to
be rejected in view of the decision of the
C/SCA/5622/2021 ORDER DATED: 20/12/2022
Coordinate Bench dated 07.10.2022 passed in
Special Civil Application No.18352 of 2019 and
allied matters. It is also noticed that
subsequently, the petitioner has filed the writ
petition being Special Civil Application No.19101
of 2022 against the action of the respondent
authority revoking his regular appointment.
9. Hence, in view of the subsequent development
and in light of the aforesaid judgement, the writ
petition cannot be entertained and hence, the
same is rejected. Notice is discharged.
Sd/-
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
NVMEWADA
