Ashishsinh Pravinsinh Zala vs Maharaja Krishnakumarsinhji ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 8955 Guj

    C/SCA/16113/2017                                   ORDER DATED: 10/10/2022




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

             R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16113 of 2017

=============================================
           ASHISHSINH PRAVINSINH ZALA & 1 other(s)
                          Versus
MAHARAJA KRISHNAKUMARSINHJI BHAVNAGAR UNIVERSITY & 1 other(s)
=============================================
Appearance:
MR PA JADEJA(3726) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
MR AD OZA(515) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2
=============================================

  CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE

                              Date : 10/10/2022

                                ORAL ORDER

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed with prayers as under:

"(A) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the Respondent Nos. 2, to continue the services of the Petitioners as ad hoc Teaching Assistant, in the branch of Chemistry, upon completion of 11 months period, referring to their appointment letters issued on 1.7.2016, as annexed herein at Annexure-C and further continue them in service till all the regularly selected candidates are made available pursuant to the selection undertaken by Respondent No.1.

(B) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,

C/SCA/16113/2017 ORDER DATED: 10/10/2022

order or direction commanding the Respondent Nos. 2 to pay the petitioners regular salary of Rs.16,500/since 31.5.2017.

(C) Pending hearing and final disposal of the petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to restrain the Respondent Nos. 2 from terminating the services of the Petitioners and thereupon continue paying them salary as per the order dated 1.7.2016 annexed at Annexure-C.

(D) That Your Lordships may be pleased to award cost of these proceedings."

2. Neither learned Advocate for the petitioners nor learned Advocate for the respondents are present, when the matter is called out. The matter is of the year 2017 and pertains to continuing the petitioners on their appointed place of Ad-hoc Teaching Assistant in the branch of Chemistry till the regularly selected candidate is not available.

3. In the similar facts, this Court has already passed the order in a different petition being Special Civil Application No.11992 of 2017 and as the facts of the present case are quite similar, even in absence of learned Advocate for the petitioners, the matter is proceeded on the basis of pleadings.

4. It appears that the petitioners were engaged as they were having requisite educational qualification to teach in the subject of Chemistry at Graduation level as per the UGC Norm and were therefore, engaged as Assistant Professors. However, such appointment was for fixed period of 11 months, which was being extended from time to time. Lastly, in the year 2016, such engagement was made for the period of 11 months. The apprehension of the petitioners is that if that their services would not be extended and in absence of regularly appointed candidate, the

C/SCA/16113/2017 ORDER DATED: 10/10/2022

petitioners would be substituted by another Ad-hoc candidates.

5. Affidavit in reply on behlaf of the respondent indicates that the petitioners' appointment was made on contract basis and were purely temporary in nature and they were taken as Teaching Assistant for Self Finances course in Chemistry subject on a fixed salary. Appointments of the petitioners were approved by the University, only on condition that the same would be on contractual basis for the period of 11 months and that too apparently in the interest of the students, so that their education does not suffer. Claim of the respondent is that the appointments of the petitioners were not by way of regular selection procedure and therefore, they cannot claim permanency, as if they are regularly selected Assistant Professors and cannot claim to be placed at par with other regularly appointed Teaching Staff including Teaching Assistant of other subjects.

6. The law on this point is clear that the procedure undertaken to appoint an Ad-hoc employee in place of Ad-hoc employee is deprecated by the Apex Court in several judgments. At the same time, appointment to the regularly available post should also be by following due process and set up for such recruitment.

7. In the facts of the present case, in absence of any factual matrix regarding discontinuing of the petitioners by any written order or action on the part of the respondent, the Court is not inclined to pass any order with regard to the claim of the petitioners.

8. With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed of.

(A.Y. KOGJE, J) PARESH SOMPURA