Gujarat High Court
Mittalben Ashokkumar Sathavara vs Sardar Krushinagar Dantivada ... on 2 May, 2022
Bench: Vipul M. Pancholi
C/SCA/18537/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18537 of 2016
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: Sd./-
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed NO
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy NO
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question NO
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
MITTALBEN ASHOKKUMAR SATHAVARA
Versus
SARDAR KRUSHINAGAR DANTIVADA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY & 1
other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.DIPAK B PATEL(3744) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR DG CHAUHAN(218) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RONAK D CHAUHAN(7709) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR HARDIK MEHTA, for the Respondent(s) No.2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
Date : 02/05/2022
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India in which the petitioner has
prayed that the impugned order, Dated: 09.09.2016,
passed by the Respondent-University be quashed and
set aside the said order and thereby, direct the
Respondent-University to reinstate the petitioner in
C/SCA/18537/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2022
service.
2. Heard, learned Advocate, Mr. Patel, for the
petitioner and learned Advocate, Mr. Chauhan, for the
Respondent-University and learned AGP, Mr. Mehta, for
Respondent No.2.
3. Learned Advocate, Mr. Patel, appearing for
the petitioner submitted that the Respondent-
University published an online advertisement,
inviting the applications from the eligible
candidates for the post of Agricultural Assistant.
3.1 It was submitted that as the petitioner was
holding the requisite qualifications for the said
post, she made an online application.
3.2 Thereafter, a written examination was
conducted and the petitioner cleared the same. She
was, thereafter, called for interview on 27.02.2014
and was selected for the said post.
3.3 The appointment letter dated 28.02.2014 came
to be issued, appointing the petitioner on the post
of agricultural assistant.
3.4 The petitioner joined the services on
03.03.2014 and thereafter, she was transferred.
3.5 It was submitted that on 15.07.2016, a
notice came to to be served on the petitioner by one
C/SCA/18537/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2022
Mr. R.M. Jani, Inquiry Officer, regarding the
misbehavior and misconduct committed by the
petitioner with one Ms. Hasumati D. Shastri.
3.5.1 The petitioner submitted her reply to the
said notice on 22.07.2016.
3.6 Thereafter, the Respondent passed the
impugned order dated 09.09.2016, terminating the
services of the petitioner.
3.7 Hence, the petitioner has filed the present
petition.
4. Learned Advocate, Mr. Patel, appearing for
the petitioner submitted that the impugned order
passed by the Respondent-University is in complete
violation of the principles of natural justice and
without holding any departmental inquiry against the
petitioner, her services came to be terminated.
4.1 It was, therefore, submitted that on this
sole ground only, this petition requires to be
allowed.
4.2 However, at this stage, learned Advocate,
Mr. Patel, referred to the affidavit filed by the
petitioner, wherein, she has stated that she is ready
and willing to forego her right of salary from the
date of her termination, i.e. 09.09.2016, till the
date of her reinstatement, if, the Respondent-
C/SCA/18537/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2022
University is ready and willing to reinstate the
petitioner on her original post with continuity of
service. It was, however, submitted that she maybe
granted all other benefits for the aforesaid period.
4.2.1 The affidavit filed by the petitioner is
taken on record.
5. On the other hand, learned Advocate, Mr.
Chauhan, appearing for the Respondent-University
referred to the averments made in the affidavit-in-
reply filed on behalf of the Respondent-University
and resisted the claim of the petitioner on merits.
5.1 However, after taking instructions, it was
submitted that as the petitioner has filed an
undertaking and has also shown willingness to forego
her right of salary, the Respondent-University shall
reinstate the petitioner on her original post on
probation within the period of four weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order.
5.2 It was also submitted that the petitioner
shall be given continuity of service and her
seniority also shall be maintained.
5.3 It was, further, submitted that after the
petitioner is reinstated on her original post, her
case for regularization shall be considered in
accordance with law.
C/SCA/18537/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2022
6. In view of the aforesaid submissions made by
learned Advocates for the parties, without entering
into the merits of the matter, this petition is being
DISPOSED OF with the direction to the Respondent-
University to reinstate the petitioner on her
original post on PROBATION within the period of FOUR
WEEKS from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order with continuity of service.
6.1 Further, the petitioner will NOT GET any
monetary benefit from the date of her termination,
i.e. 09.09.2016, till her reinstatement. However, the
case of the petitioner shall be considered for
regularization of on completion of probation in
accordance with rules and regulations of the
Respondent-University.
6.2 It is CLARIFIED that this Court has not
examined the merits of the case of the petitioner.
However, in view of the submissions canvassed on
behalf of the parties, impugned order is quashed and
set aside.
Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid
extent. Direct service is permitted.
Sd./-
(VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J)
UMESH/-
