Kokila Ravigiri Goswami vs Gujarat Vidhyapith
2025 Latest Caselaw 1788 Guj

Gujarat High Court

Kokila Ravigiri Goswami vs Gujarat Vidhyapith on 4 August, 2025

                                                                                                                    NEUTRAL CITATION




                              C/SCA/2561/2018                                         ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025

                                                                                                                     undefined




                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                       R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2561 of 2018

                       ==========================================================
                                                      KOKILA RAVIGIRI GOSWAMI
                                                               Versus
                                                        GUJARAT VIDHYAPITH
                       ==========================================================
                       Appearance:
                       ADITYA A GUPTA(7875) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
                       MR MK VAKHARIA(1483) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
                       ==========================================================

                          CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT

                                                                Date : 04/08/2025

                                                                 ORAL ORDER

1. Heard Ld. Advocate Mr. Aditya A Gupta appearing

for the Petitioner and Ld. Advocate Mr. Mehul Vakharia

appearing for the Respondent University. The present petition

is filed for the following reliefs:

a) YOUR LORDSHIPS BE PLEASED to Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, direction or order to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 31.01.2018 bearing No. GV/VC/167-171/2017-2018 passed by the respondent at Annexure A to this petition in the interest of justice and to Issue such other writ, order or direction in the interest of justice.

b) YOUR LORDSHIPS BE PLEASED to stay operation and implementation of the impugned order dated 31.01.2018 bearing No. GV/VC/167-171/2017-2018 passed by the respondent at Annexure A pending admission, hearing and

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2561/2018 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025

undefined

final disposal of this petition in the interest of justice.

c) Or In the Alternative, Be PLEASED to direct the Respondent University to continue paying regular salary to the Petitioner pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition in the interest of justice.

d) BE PLEASED to grant ex-parte ad-Interim relief in terms of para 24(b) or 24(c) as deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition in the interest of justice. the interest of Justice pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition in the Interest of justice.

e) YOUR LORDSHIPS BE PLEASED pass such other and further orders, which may be deemed fit in the interest of justice.

2. The brief facts arising out of the present petition

are as under:

2.1 The petitioner had been working at Gujarat

Vidyapith/Respondent as an ad-hoc employee on contractual

basis since 1999 on various posts including the Library

Department of the respondent.

2.2 The Respondent issued a public advertisement

inviting applications for the post of Library Assistant on

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2561/2018 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025

undefined

08.06.2010. The public notice /advertisement published in the

newspaper had no mention of any maximum age limit. The

petitioner submitted her application for recruitment on the

post of Library Assistant with all the relevant documents as

sought by the respondent.

2.3 The Executive Committee of the respondent had

vide Resolution No. 3 dated 18.10.2010 gave the relaxation of

age upto 45 years in the appointments to the candidates who

have worked on contract basis for more than five years with

Respondent University.

2.4 It is not in dispute that the Petitioner had worked

on contract basis with Respondent University for more than 5

years and therefore, the Petitioner was eligible for age relaxation as per Resolution No. 3 of 18.10.2010.

2.5 The Petitioner was appointed on the post of

Library Assistant on probation vide appointment letter dated

17.02.2011. That after being satisfied with the service of the

Petitioner, she was confirmed on the post of Library

Assistant. At the time of appointment, the Petitioner was 42

years, 3 months.

2.6 It appears that CAG audit party took an objection

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2561/2018 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025

undefined

in 2016-17 that certain appointments including the

appointment of the Petitioner was made in violation of the

age criteria. It appears that the Respondent sought

clarification from UGC vide letter dated 25.02.2017. In

response to the Respondent's letter dated 25.02.2017 seeking

UGC's clarification, UGC clarified 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 Govt. of India.

2.7 The petitioner was rendering her services when

the Petitioner received a letter dated 29.09.2017 from the

Respondent University stating that CAG had taken an

objection in its audit in the matter of appointment of the Petitioner. That the objection was that at the time of

appointment of the Petitioner she was exceeding the age limit

of 30 years.

2.8 The Respondent issued show-cause notice dated

14.11.2017 to the Petitioner. It appears that on account of

the observations of the CAG Audit that the appointment of

the petitioner on the post of Library Assistant is against the

norms of the UGC/GOI as the petitioner was not meeting

the age limit criteria of 30 years at the time of appointment,

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2561/2018 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025

undefined

the Respondent University initiated proceedings to terminate

the service of the Petitioner from the University.

2.9 The Petitioner took several objections vide its

representation dated 27.11.2017. The Petitioner further made

an additional representation against the show cause notice on

14.12.2017. However, the Respondent terminated the services

of the Petitioner vide its termination letter dated 31.01.2018.

3. 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 for more than 10 years 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 University itself since she was aged 42

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2561/2018 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025

undefined

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

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. It was further

submitted to take a sympathetic view considering that the

Petitioner is an unmarried lady who was completely

dependent on her job with the Respondent University.

4. 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 ab-initio. Ld. Advocate Mr. Mehul K Vakharia

submitted that the Respondent University had passed the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2561/2018 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025

undefined

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.

5. 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:

5.1 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.

5.2 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2561/2018 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025

undefined

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

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.

5.3 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2561/2018 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025

undefined

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

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.

5.4 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2561/2018 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025

undefined

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 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 Non-formal education centers, from where they

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2561/2018 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025

undefined

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, 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 35-45 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.

25. 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2561/2018 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025

undefined

appointments in view of length of service (five years and more)."

5.5 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

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.

5.6 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2561/2018 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025

undefined

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, the appointments were illegal and non est....."

6. 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 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