Gujarat High Court
Nazimabanu Akberbhai Shaikh S/O. ... vs Gujarat Vidhyapith on 4 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3489/2018 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3489 of 2018
==========================================================
NAZIMABANU AKBERBHAI SHAIKH S/O. AKBERBHAI SHAIKH
Versus
GUJARAT VIDHYAPITH & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
RONITH JOY(9560) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR MK VAKHARIA(1483) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MRS SUMAN KHARE(2226) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 04/08/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard Ld. Advocate Mr. Ronith Joy Mathew
appearing for the Petitioner and Ld. Advocate Mr. Mehul
Vakharia appearing for the Respondent Vidhyapith.
2. The present petition, under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, is preferred by the petitioner seeking
following reliefs:
"YOUR LORDSHIPS BE PLEASED
a) quashing and setting aside the order dated
31.1.2018 at Annexure-A;
b) Reinstating the petitioner in service with all
consequential benefits including the arrears of pay
and seniority with 12% interest;
c) During the pendency and till the final disposal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3489/2018 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025
undefined
of the present petition, staying the further
operation and implementation of the order dated
31.1.2018 at Annexure-A; and
d) Passing any other appropriate order."
3. The facts of the case are as under:
3.1 The petitioner is a highly qualified individual,
having secured B.A., Bachelor of Library & Information
Science, M.A., M.Phil, and a DCA qualification.
3.2 The petitioner was associated with the respondent
Vidyapith on a contract basis since 1998. The respondent
Vidyapith published an advertisement dated 10.06.2010 for
the post of Lower Division Clerk and Library Assistants and
other posts wherein the petitioner had applied for the post of
Lower Division Clerk and Library Assistant and she was
considered eligible.
3.3 Although the age limit for the post was 25 years
(with a maximum of 30 including all relaxations), the
Executive Committee of the Vidyapith vide order dated
24.12.2011 extended the upper age limit up to 45 years for
internal candidates having more than 5 years of service as
on 10.07.2010, enabling the petitioner to be eligible.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3489/2018 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025
undefined
3.4 After going through the recruitment process
(written test and personal interview), the petitioner was
selected and appointed as a Library Assistant with effect
from 02.06.2012, with salary as per UGC norms.
3.5 In September 2017, the Audit Department raised
objections regarding the petitioner's appointment citing age-
related violations, which were later referred to the
Comptroller & Auditor General (CAG).
3.6 The petitioner was asked to respond and issued a
show cause notice dated 14.11.2017, to which she replied on
multiple occasions, justifying her appointment based on the
relaxation policy adopted by the Vidyapith itself.
3.7 The petitioner submitted her reply contending that
she was already working with the Institution and therefore
the benefit of upper age relaxation was given to her as per
decision of Executive Committee.
3.8 The petitioner was served with show cause notice
dated 14.11.2017 which was replied on 21.11.2017 and there
after the petitioner was called upon to submit documents.
3.9 Despite the submissions, the respondents proceeded
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3489/2018 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025
undefined
to terminate the petitioner's services through the impugned
order dated 31.01.2018.
4. Ld. Advocate for the Petitioner contended that the
order dated 31.01.2018 terminating the petitioner deserves to
be quashed and set aside and the Petitioner deserves to be
reinstated with full consequential benefits. Ld. Advocate
submitted that the Petitioner was working as an ad-hoc
employee with the Respondent University since the year 1998
at the time of application. The advertisement did not indicate
any age criteria. It is submitted that there is no allegation
that the Petitioner suppressed any information from the
Respondent University. It is further submitted that the
Respondent University had itself granted age relaxation of up
to 45 years in the case of appointments to the candidates
who have worked on contract basis for more than five years
with Gujarat Vidyapith. It was submitted that the Petitioner
was eligible for age relaxation as per the resolution passed
by the Respondent Vidhyapith itself since she was aged 42
years and 3 months at the time of appointment and she had
worked on contract basis for more than 5 years with Gujarat
Vidyapith. Ld. Advocate further submitted that after having
served for more than 6 years, the Respondent University
could have not turned around and challenged its own
appointment order as being illegal. It was further submitted
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3489/2018 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025
undefined
that the Respondent University was estopped from
terminating the services of the Petitioner vide impugned
order dated 31.01.2018 on the ground that the Petitioner did
not meet the age criteria at the time of her appointment on
17.02.2011. It was further submitted that there was no bar
on the Respondent in granting age relaxation.
5. Ld. Advocate Mr. Mehul Vakharia has submitted
that appointment letter specifically states that the
appointment will be subject to the condition no. 7 i.e. the
final decision as regards to her appointment and further
interpretation and suggestions given by the UGC and shall
be binding on her. Ld. Advocate has vehemently argued that
the appointment given in pursuance to the condition no. 7 is
illegal and abinitio.
6. Ld. Advocate Mr. Mehul K Vakharia submitted
that the Respondent University had passed the order based
on the observations of the CAG Audit party which had
observed that the appointment of the Petitioner was illegal
since the Petitioner did not meet the age criterion at the
time of her appointment. Consequently, Ld. Advocate for the
Respondent requested this Hon'ble Court to not interfere in
the present petition.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3489/2018 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025
undefined
7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of
the present case as well as the arguments made by the Ld.
Advocates for the parties, it is held as under:
7.1 It is not in dispute that the Petitioner had served
an ad-hoc employee on contractual basis since 1999 on
various posts including the Library Department of the
respondent and had completed more than 10 years as an ad-
hoc employee when she applied for the post of Library
Assistant pursuant to the advertisement dated 08.06.2010
inviting applications for the post of Library Assistant.
7.2 It is further not in dispute that the Petitioner had
not suppressed any information regarding her age or
qualification at the time of her application. As per resolution
no. 3 dated 18.10.2010 of the executive committee of the
Respondent University, the Respondent University had
granted relaxation of age upto 45 years, in the appointments
to the candidates who have worked on contract basis for
more than five years with Gujarat Vidyapith. It is not in
dispute that the Petitioner had been rendering service as an
employee on contractual basis since 1999 and was therefore,
given the benefit of age relaxation by the Respondent
University. That at the time of appointment, the Petitioner
was 42 years, 3 months. After her appointment on
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3489/2018 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025
undefined
17.02.2011, the Petitioner has served for a period of more
than six years before a show-cause notice dated 14.11.2017
was issued to terminate her on the ground that at the time
of her appointment in 2010, she did not meet the age
criteria.
7.3 In such circumstances, this Hon'ble Court is of the
view that the Respondent University was not justified in
terminating the services of the petitioner vide impugned order
dated 31.01.2018. The Respondent University had itself
granted age relaxation to the Petitioner as per the resolution
no. 3 dated 18.10.2010 of the executive committee. The
Respondent University could not point out any rule as per
which it was barred from granting age relaxation. Even
otherwise, the respondent could not have questioned its own
appointment order after a period of more than 6 years of
service having been rendered by the Petitioner especially
when no fault can be put on the Petitioner. It is not the
case of the Respondent University that the age of the
Petitioner was suppressed or wrongly stated at the time of
her appointment. The Petitioner was appointed to the post of
Library Assistant with full knowledge by the Respondent
University. The submission of the Ld. Advocate of the
Respondent that it took the action on the basis of the
observations of the CAG audit party cannot be countenanced
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3489/2018 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025
undefined
since CAG Audit Party has not considered the aspects taken
into account by this Hon'ble Court in the present petition
and further, UGC itself has clarified vide letter dated
20.09.2017 that there are no rules notified by UGC for
relaxation of age for appointment of department candidates
and that it is upto the appointing authority to take a
decision in the matter in accordance with the rules of
Government of India.
7.4 It is settled law that it is not open for the
employer to question its own appointment as being illegal
after a huge lapse of time and after the employee has served
for a considerable length of time. In Vikas Pratap Singh v.
State of Chattisgarh 2013 14 SCC 494, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court observed as under:
"22. ....It is also settled law that a person appointed
erroneously on a post must not reap the benefits of
wrongful appointment jeopardizing the interests of the
meritorious and worthy candidates. However, in cases
where a wrongful or irregular appointment is made
without any mistake on the part of the appointee and
upon discovery of such error or irregularity the
appointee is terminated, this Court has taken a
sympathetic view in the light of various factors
including bonafide of the candidate in such appointment
and length of service of the candidate after such
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3489/2018 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025
undefined
appointment (See: Vinodan T. and Ors. v. University of
Calicut and Ors.,(2002) 4 SCC 726; State of U.P. v.
Neeraj Awasthi and Ors. (2006) 1 SCC 667).
23. In Girjesh Shrivastava and Ors. v. State of M.P.
and Ors., (2010) 10 SCC 707, the High Court had
invalidated the rule prescribing selection procedure
which awarded grace marks of 25 per cent and age
relaxation to the candidates with three years' long non-
formal teaching experiences as a consequence of which
several candidates appointed as teachers at the formal
education institutions under the said rule stood ousted.
This Court while concurring with the observations made
by the High Court kept in view that upon rectification
of irregularities in appointment after a considerable
length of time an order for cancellation of appointment
would severely affect economic security of a number of
candidates and observed as follows :
"31. ...Most of them were earlier teaching in
Nonformal education centers, from where they
had resigned to apply in response to the
advertisement. They had left their previous
employment in view of the fact that for their
three year long teaching experiences, the
interview process in the present selection was
awarding them grace marks of 25 per cent. It
had also given them a relaxation of 8 years
with respect to their age. Now, if they lose
their jobs as a result of High Court's order,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3489/2018 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025
undefined
they would be effectively unemployed as they
cannot even revert to their earlier jobs in the
Non-formal education centers, which have been
abolished since then. This would severely affect
the economic security of many families. Most
of them are between the age group of 3545
years, and the prospects for them of finding
another job are rather dim. Some of them
were in fact awaiting their salary rise at the
time of quashing of their appointment by the
High Court."
Therefore, mindful of the aforesaid circumstances this
Court directed non-ouster of the candidates appointed
under the invalidated rule.
7.5 This Court in Gujarat State Deputy Executive
Engineers' Association v. State of Gujarat and Ors., 1994
Supp (2) SCC 591 although recorded a finding that
appointments given under the `wait list' were not in
accordance with law but refused to set aside such
appointments in view of length of service (five years and
more).
7.6 Considering that the Petitioner has rendered more
than 6 years of service with the Respondent University at
the time when show-cause notice dated 14.11.2017 was issued
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3489/2018 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025
undefined
to her on the ground that she did not meet the age criteria
at the time of her appointment in 2010-11, the above
judgments would apply to the facts of the present case.
Consequently, it would be inequitable to terminate the
services of the Petitioner after a period of more than 6 years
from the date of her appointment for no fault of her.
7.7 Further, the Respondent University is now
estopped from questioning the appointment of the petitioner
after having appointed the Petitioner and relying upon such
appointment, the Petitioner accepted the same and worked for
more than 6 years with the Respondent University. In Aruna
Puri v. State 1995 SCC Online Raj 370; it was held as
under :
"5. ... As regards the recruitment process is already
completed by issuing appointment letters to the
candidates, the respondents would be bound by the
principles of estoppel. The candidates who applied for a
post have a legitimate expectation and are entitled to
presume that the employer has taken all the care to see
that the process of selection is not wasted by any
legality or any irregularity. When the process is complete
and appointment letters are issued, at least the employer
himself is not expected to turn around and tell the
successful candidates, who have already been appointed,
that the process of selection was wrong, and therefore,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3489/2018 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025
undefined
the appointments were illegal and non est....."
8. In view of the above, this Court is of the view
that the impugned order dated 31.01.2018 cannot be
sustained and therefore, the same deserves to be quashed
and set aside. The writ petition stands allowed. Consequently,
the Respondent is directed to reinstate the Petitioner with all
consequential benefits without Interest as if the order dated
31.01.2018 had not been passed. The Respondent is directed
to pass consequential order in accordance with law within a
period of 1 month from the date of receipt of the order of
this Court. Direct Service is Permitted.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J)
M.H. DAVE
