Gujarat High Court
Hardikkumar R Dodiya vs Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel Institute Of ... on 28 January, 2025
Author: Nirzar S. Desai
Bench: Nirzar S. Desai
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/347/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/01/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 347 of 2025
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 376 of 2025
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 381 of 2025
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 382 of 2025
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 384 of 2025
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 394 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
=====================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
Yes
=====================================================
HARDIKKUMAR R DODIYA
Versus
SARDAR VALLABHBHAI PATEL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY &
ORS.
=====================================================
Appearance:
MR SANDIP H MUNJYASARA(10781) for the Petitioner(s)
No. 1
HARSHESH R KAKKAD(7813) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
MR PA JADEJA(3726) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
=====================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
Date : 28/01/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. All these group of petitions are filed against a
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/347/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/01/2025
undefined
common interim order passed by the Gujarat
Educational Institutional Service Tribunal in
various applications filed by the petitioner. By
way of impugned order dated 24.12.2024 below
Exh.1 in application No.54 to 59 of 2023, the
Tribunal has vacated ad-interim relief granted
in favour of the petitioners and that is how the
petitioners are here before this Court.
2. With the consent of learned advocates appearing
for the respective parties, the matter was taken
up finally as it was stated by learned advocate
Mr. P. A. Jadeja appearing for the respondent
that on account of interim order, the respondent
Institution has to pay salary to the petitioners
which increases the financial burden on the
respondent Institution and therefore, the matter
be heard finally and accordingly, these
petitions were heard finally with the consent of
learned advocates appearing for the parties. In
view of that issue RULE. Learned advocate Mr.
P. A. Jadeja waives the service of rule on
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/347/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/01/2025
undefined
behalf of the respondents No.1 and 2. Learned
advocate Mr. Harshesh Kakkad waives the service
of rule on behalf of the respondent No.3.
3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Sandip Munjyasara for
the petitioners in all the petitions.
4. The brief facts stated in the petitions can be
summarized as under :-
4.1 All these petitioners are appointed as
Assistant Professor in various Mechanical
Branches of Engineering of respondent No.1
College which is run by respondent No.2. They
are in service since last more than ten years
which is an admitted position and none of the
parties have disputed the aforesaid position.
The stand was taken by respondent No.2 that on
account of decrease in number of students in
Mechanical Branch of Engineering, the present
petitioners services were not required and
therefore initially a notice dated 8.9.2023 was
given to each of the petitioners intimating them
that the services would be terminated with
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/347/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/01/2025
undefined
effect from 1.1.2024. Upon receipt of the
aforesaid notice, the petitioners approached the
Gujarat Educational Institutional Service
Tribunal by way of various applications and the
aforesaid notice was challenged by the
of 2023 and thereafter, the notice was issued by
the Tribunal on 1.12.2023. However, upon the
aforesaid notice issued by the Tribunal dated
1.12.2023 was served upon the respondents No.1
and 2 on 5.12.2023 as stated by learned advocate
Mr. Sandip Munjyasara, immediately on the next
day, the respondents No.1 and 2 issued second
termination order, vide order dated 6.12.2023
and by way of second termination order dated
6.12.2023 services of each of the petitioners
were terminated with immediate effect. The
petitioners therefore sought to amend the
applications before the Gujarat Educational
Institutional Service Tribunal and ultimately,
succeeded in amending the applications.
Thereafter, vide order dated 11.12.2023, the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/347/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/01/2025
undefined
Tribunal granted interim relief in favour of the
petitioners and second order of termination
dated 6.12.2023 by which the petitioners
services were terminated with immediate effect
was kept in abeyance by the Tribunal.
4.2 The respondents on 2.7.2024 and more
particularly, the respondent - College withdrew
the second termination order dated 6.12.2023 on
2.7.2024 and the aforesaid fact was brought to
the notice of the Tribunal by way of a pursis
before the Tribunal which was not functioning at
that time since April 2024. The pursis was
submitted before the Tribunal on 5.7.2024 by the
respondent No.1 College and in the meantime,
though the pursis was issued on 5.7.2024 as can
been seen from page No.73 of the petition, what
is more significant is the fact that on
3.7.2024, the respondent - College has issued
third termination order with effect from
1.10.2024 but surprisingly though the third
termination order was issued on 3.7.2024 though
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/347/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/01/2025
undefined
the Tribunal was not functioning at that point
of time a pursis was submitted by the respondent
College on the next of hearing that was
scheduled on 5.7.2024 but the pursis was given
only indicating that the second termination
order dated 6.12.2023 is withdrawn by the
respondent College. At that point of time,
though the third termination order was issued on
3.7.2024, this fact was not disclosed in the
aforesaid pursis.
4.3 Upon issuance of termination order
dated 3.7.2024, as the Tribunal was not
functioning at that point of time, the
petitioners approach this Court by filing
Special Civil Application No.10234 of 2024 and
allied matters and all those petitions were
disposed of by the Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court vide order dated 26.9.2024 directing the
petitioners to approach the Gujarat Educational
Institutional Service Tribunal by filing
appropriate Appeal on or before 7.10.2024. The
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/347/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/01/2025
undefined
Tribunal was directed to take up the preliminary
hearing of the appeal before 15.10.2024 and to
decide aspect of grant of relief. The aforesaid
order passed in light of the statement made by
learned advocate Mr. P. A. Jadeja appearing for
respondent No.1 College in earlier round of
litigation as well whereby he stated that the
termination order dated 3.7.2024 shall not be
acted upon by respondent No.1 College and the
petitioners shall not be relieved from the job
till 15.10.2024 and therefore, on the above
statement the petition was disposed of.
4.4 The present petitioners challenged the
aforesaid order by preferring Letters Patent
Appeal No.1453 of 2024 and allied matters and
the Letters Patent Appeal was disposed of by the
Division Bench of this Court vide order dated
4.10.2024 by making following observations :-
"1. At the outset, it is submitted by
learned Advocate Mr. P.A. Jadeja for the
respondents that he has no objection if
the original proceedings filed before the
Gujarat Education Services Tribunal (for
short "the Tribunal") being Application
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/347/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/01/2025
undefined
Nos.54, 55, 56, 57, 58 and 59 of 2023 are
restored to its original file.
2. Learned Advocate for the appellants Mr.
Sandeep H. Munjyasara is also agreeable to
the aforesaid aspect. He has submitted
that liberty may be reserved in favour of
the appellants to challenge the Notice
dated 03.07.2024 by amending the
applications accordingly.
3. Under the circumstances, in view of the
aforesaid consensus, the proceedings
before the Tribunal being Application
Nos.54, 55, 56, 57, 58 and 59 of 2023 are
ordered to be restored to its original
file. It will be open for the appellants
to file appropriate amendment applications
challenging the Notice dated 03.07.2024.
The Tribunal shall restore the appeals on
receipt of the present order. The
appellants shall file appropriate
amendment applications in such appeals
within a period of one week. Till such
applications are filed and heard by the
Tribunal, the respondents are directed to
maintain status quo with regard to the
service of the appellants. The Tribunal
shall immediately, on registration of the
applications filed by the appellants
within a period of one week, hear the
applications either for further extending
the stay or not and shall pass appropriate
order, with regard to the service
conditions of the appellants.
4. Learned Advocate for the appellants,
Mr. Sanjay H. Munjyasara, has submitted
that the writ petition being F/
SCA/28148/2024 which is filed for the
appellants, would not be pressed by the
appellants. If such a request is made
before the learned Single Judge or before
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/347/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/01/2025
undefined
the Registrar, appropriate orders acceding
the request made by learned Advocate Mr.
Sanjay H. Munjyasara for withdrawing the
petition may be passed.
5. All the contentions of the respective
parties are kept open and the Tribunal
shall deal with the same in accordance
with law. It goes without saying that we
have not expressed anything on merits.
6. With the aforesaid directions, the
Letters Patent Appeals stand disposed of.
The impugned order passed by the learned
Single Judge is modified to aforesaid
extent. As a sequel, the connected Civil
Applications stand disposed of."
4.5 As the Letters Patent Appeal was
disposed of vide order dated 4.10.2024, the
original application which was pending before
the Tribunal being applications No.54 to 59 of
2023 was taken up for hearing by the Tribunal
and ultimately vide order dated 24.12.2024, the
Tribunal decided the applications filed by the
petitioners and vacated the ad-interim relief
operating in favour of the petitioners which was
extended from time to time as initially learned
advocate Mr. P. A. Jadeja appearing for the
respondent College had made a statement before
the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court which was
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/347/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/01/2025
undefined
recorded in the order dated 26.9.2024 which is
referred in foregoing paragraphs.
4.6 The aforesaid interim order dated
24.12.2024, which is a subject matter of
challenge in each of these petitions.
5. I am conscious of the fact that dispute is
pending before the Tribunal and by way this
petition only an interim order is challenged and
therefore, considering the fact that the main
matter is pending before the Tribunal, learned
advocates made the submissions which can be
summarized as under.
6. Learned advocate Mr. Sandip Munjyasara appearing
for the petitioners in each of the petitions
made following submissions :-
6.1 That the order of termination is a
predetermined one and the respondents had
terminated their services under the guise of
reduction in number of students in mechanical
branch which is not the case. In fact, according
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/347/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/01/2025
undefined
to learned advocate Mr. Munjyasara, the number
of students have increased in the College and
therefore, the respondents are in a position to
continue the petitioners to serve as the
petitioners services can be utilized in other
branches as well. Learned advocate Mr.
Munjyasara also disputed the fact that in
reality, the number of students in mechanical
branch has also increased. On the contrary,
learned advocate Mr. Munjyasara went on to make
submissions by stating that in fact number of
students have increased in mechanical branch as
well and therefore, the termination order passed
under the guise of decrease in number of
students in mechanical branch is an order passed
on incorrect facts just with a view to ensure
that the petitioners services can be put to an
end swiftly.
6.2 The second submissions made by learned
advocate Mr. Munjyasara is that this Court may
consider the overall conduct of the respondents
and the circumstances in which repeatedly the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/347/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/01/2025
undefined
respondents have passed the termination order
one after another would indicate that the action
of the respondents of terminating the services
of the petitioners is a predetermined action not
based on any facts but on the ground of personal
grudge and to prove their supremacy and as on
the first occasion, the respondents issued a
notice for termination on 8.9.2023 wherein when
the Tribunal issued notice on 1.12.2023 and the
same was served upon respondents on 5.12.2023
immediately on the next day, the services of the
petitioners were terminated vide order dated
6.12.2023, which would indicate that the
respondents have tried to overreach the process
of law and though the matter was subjudice even
without waiting for returnable date and to bring
it to the notice of the Tribunal that the
respondents under the circumstances which might
have compelled the respondents to terminate the
services of the petitioner that termination is
inevitable but the respondents did not even
bother to bring it to the notice of the Tribunal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/347/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/01/2025
undefined
and with absolute disregard to the Tribunal
though the matter was subjudice, issued a fresh
termination order dated 6.12.2023.
6.3 Another instance pointed out by learned
advocate Mr. Munjyasara was the fact that in
July 2024, the Tribunal was not functioning. On
2.7.2024, the respondents withdrew the
termination order dated 6.12.2023 and the matter
was scheduled to be listed before the Tribunal
on 5.7.2024. In between on 3.7.2024, immediately
on the next day after withdrawing the earlier
termination order which was kept in abeyance by
the Tribunal vide order dated 11.12.2023, just
with a view to defeat the order passed by the
Tribunal, an illusion was created by the
respondents No.1 and 2 as if they are
withdrawing the order of termination dated
6.12.2023 but in fact the respondents intention
was just to get rid of or just come out of the
shekels of stay which was operating against
them. On 2.7.2024, the respondents withdrew the
termination order dated 6.12.2023 passed a fresh
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/347/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/01/2025
undefined
termination order on the very next day i.e. on
3.7.2024 making the termination effective from
1.10.2024. However, once again, the conduct of
the respondents is required to be seen as the
respondents filed a pursis before the Tribunal
on 5.7.2024 and disclosed only the fact that the
termination order is withdrawn by them without
disclosing the fact that in the interregnum
period a fresh termination order has already
been issued by the respondents.
6.4 According to learned advocate Mr.
Munjyasara, the above conduct and practice
adopted by the respondents are absolutely
dishonest, malafide and showing gross disregard
to the supremacy of the judicial system which
would indicate that the orders passed by the
Competent Judicial Forum are taken for granted.
However aforesaid background and conduct of the
respondents, though was brought to the notice of
the Tribunal, the Tribunal failed to appreciate
the same and only by considering the aspect of
financial hardship to the respondent
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/347/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/01/2025
undefined
Institution, the stay operating in favour of the
petitioners by virtue of statement made by
learned advocate appearing for the respondents
before this Court was vacated.
6.5 Lastly, learned advocate Mr. Munjyasara
submitted that at this juncture, when the
Tribunal has not even reached up to the stage of
evidence and when the respondents say that there
are insufficient number of students or that the
number of students are decreasing is disputed by
the petitioners. However, unless the aforesaid
facts are tested by leading the evidence, the
Tribunal ought not to have vacated the relief
operating in favour of the petitioners as
vacating interim relief would amount to allowing
the impugned order to operate and then in that
case the petitioners more than ten years long
services of each of the petitioners would be
washed away and they would be rendered jobless
despite putting in all the efforts to see that
the Institution runs smoothly all the years. He,
therefore, submitted that the Tribunal has
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/347/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/01/2025
undefined
committed a grave error by vacating relief
operating in favour of the petitioners and
therefore, the impugned orders are required to
be quashed and set aside.
7. Learned advocate Mr. P. A. Jadeja appearing for
the respondents No.1 and 2 vehemently opposed
the petitions and submitted that the petitioners
are governed by the appointment order and
appointment order provides that upon giving
three months notice, their services can be
terminated. However, the petitioners despite
the aforesaid crystal clear provision in the
appointment order itself are challenging the
order of termination on their own whims without
there being any documentary support behind the
same.
7.1 Learned advocate Mr. P. A. Jadeja
further submitted that the respondent College on
experiencing decreasing number of students had
applied for reducing the number of intake
capacity before the All India Council for
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/347/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/01/2025
undefined
Technical Education (AICTE) and the intake of
number of students in mechanical engineering
branch was reduced to 60 from 120 and
thereafter, the respondent also applied before
Gujarat Technological University (GTU) for
approval which would substantiate the claim of
the respondents that in view of decrease in
number of students, the petitioners work would
not be required and therefore, respondent
Institution being a private Institution cannot
pay idle wages as according to learned advocate
Mr. P. A. Jadeja. Today, the respondents are
though paying full salary to the petitioners on
account of less students in the Institution,
there is no work for them since 1.7.2024 and
therefore, at one juncture, learned advocate Mr.
P. A. Jadeja submitted that if this Court passes
an order whereby the Court intends to continue
the petitioners in service, in that case, their
salary may be directed to be deposited before
this Court to ensure that the interest of both
the sides are taken care of and in that event,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/347/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/01/2025
undefined
in case if the petitioners succeeds before the
Tribunal, the amount of salary that may be
deposited before this Court can be disbursed to
the petitioners subject to final outcome of the
applications pending before the Tribunal.
7.2 Learned advocate Mr. P. A. Jadeja
lastly submitted that what is termed as
termination order dated 3.7.2024 actually is not
an order of termination but it's notice for
termination in accordance with the appointment
letter effecting the termination of the
petitioners on completion of three months on
1.10.2024 and therefore, as the last order of
termination cannot be said to be contrary to the
provisions of appointment order, the petitioners
even otherwise have served beyond the period of
notice and therefore, now at this juncture, no
fruitful purpose would be served to continue the
stay in favour of the petitioners.
8. I have heard learned advocates appearing for the
parties and perused the record. On perusal of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/347/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/01/2025
undefined
record as well as considering the submissions
made by learned advocates for the parties, the
fact emerges that the main dispute about
validity of termination order is pending before
the Tribunal, on account of every order of
termination passed by the respondents, each of
the petitioners have amended their applications
before the Tribunal and the Tribunal is
considering the amended applications to test the
validity of order of termination. I am also
conscious of the fact that any observations made
by this Court about the merit of the matter may
influence the proceedings before the Tribunal
and therefore, when by interim order, the relief
which is operating in favour of the petitioners
who have put in long standing service for more
than ten years in case of each of the
petitioners is now sought to be terminated.
During the course of hearing, learned advocate
Mr. Munjyasara has also apprised the Court that
most of the petitioners have crossed the age of
45 years and at this age, it would be very
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/347/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/01/2025
undefined
difficult for them to find a new job once their
services are abruptly terminated and that also
on absolutely flimsy ground that the number of
students are decreasing though the data provided
by learned advocate Mr. Munjyasara shows
otherwise and therefore, I do not intent to go
into the larger question about whether the
number of students are increased or decreased or
whether by virtue of appointment order and the
conditions therein the respondents were
justified in terminating the services of the
petitioners either by way of giving three
months notice or otherwise. Question before this
Court is only about the validity of the interim
order passed by the Tribunal, whereby the
Tribunal has vacated the relief which was
operating in favour of the petitioners.
9. I have also considered the overall background
under which all these petitioners are at
different point of time served with three
different termination orders. First termination
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/347/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/01/2025
undefined
order was dated 9.8.2023, whereby the
termination was effected with effect from
1.1.2024 was challenged before the Tribunal and
the matter was subjudice, for some extraneous
consideration, without even waiting for a
returnable date, the respondents abruptly once
again terminated the services of the petitioners
with effect from 6.12.2023. When the Tribunal
kept the aforesaid order in abeyance and though
the order was in abeyance, the respondents once
again as it seems prima-facie just to come out
the rigors of stay withdrew the termination
order, when the Tribunal was not functioning on
2.7.2024. On the very next day, the respondents
terminated the services of the petitioners once
again by issuing three months notice vide order
dated 3.7.2024 and thereafter on 5.7.2024, when
the matter was listed before the Tribunal, the
pursis submitted by the respondents did not
disclose the fact that after withdrawing the
petitioners termination order dated 6.12.2023,
the respondents have on very next day, once
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/347/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/01/2025
undefined
again issued a termination notice to the
petitioners making their termination effective
with effect from 1.10.2024. The entire exercise
carried out by the respondents at various point
of time, prima-facie indicates that the
respondents are determined to terminate the
services of the petitioners on one ground or
another. On more than one occasions, the
respondents do not seem to have respected the
judicial proceedings and the fact that the
matter was subjudice, the respondents were
served with notice of Tribunal on 5.12.2023 and
on very next day, without even waiting to appear
before the Tribunal, the services of the
petitioners were terminated once again with
immediate effect vide order dated 6.12.2023.
Similarly, once the aforesaid order was kept in
abeyance by the Tribunal, the respondents
without even intimating the Tribunal or
apprising the Tribunal about their hardship
tried to play smart in the judicial proceedings
and when the Tribunal was not functioning, the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/347/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/01/2025
undefined
respondents have withdrawn the order of
termination dated 6.12.2023 vide fresh order
dated 2.7.2024 and again on the next day
terminated the services of the petitioners and
the respondents had gone to the extent of not
placing that fact on the record of Tribunal when
the matter was listed before the Tribunal on
5.7.2024 and the respondents had placed on
record by way of a pursis the fact that the
respondents have withdrawn the order dated
6.12.2023. This entire conduct of the
respondents is deprecable. A person or
Institution cannot be allowed to play smart with
any judicial forum and if such kind of conduct
is not dealt with strictly in that case, people
will start doing the same thing again and again
and thereby, we start putting the sanctity of
the Institution at stake. Such absence cannot be
endorsed and is required to be dealt with
strictly.
10. Considering the fact that the Tribunal while
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/347/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/01/2025
undefined
vacating the interim relief had proceeded on the
ground that the College is facing financial
burden. Whether the colleges facing financial
burden or not is a matter of evidence. At this
juncture, while dictating the order, the Court
put a specific query to learned advocate Mr. P.
A. Jadeja that in support of this submissions
whether any financial data of the College was
placed on record or not, learned advocate Mr.
Munjyasara submitted that no financial data of
the respondent College related to financial
burden was placed on record. However, learned
advocate Mr. P. A. Jadeja submitted that learned
advocate Mr. Munjyasara has not placed on record
the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent
College but then learned advocate Mr. P. A.
Jadeja submitted his office copy of reply filed
before the Tribunal for perusal of the Court
which is taken on record. On perusal of
aforesaid reply filed on behalf of respondents
No.1 and 2 and though the entire reply once
again read over was considered by learned
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/347/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/01/2025
undefined
advocate Mr. P. A. Jadeja, also he could not
point out that in a single paragraph of the
reply that there is even a whisper about
financial burden directly. Further, the
affidavit-in-reply which is made available by
learned advocate Mr. P. A. Jadeja, upon
consideration of the same, the Court finds that
the affidavit-in-reply speaks about so many
aspects like performance of the teachers, by not
initiating disciplinary action against the
teachers, the Institution has shown some grace
upon them just to ensure that they don't find it
difficult to get job elsewhere and all but the
reply is silent about any financial data which
would indicate that the respondents have
suffered a huge financial loss on account of
decrease of students in the course of Mechanical
Engineering. However, learned advocate Mr. P. A.
Jadeja submitted that it is true that his second
line of submission before the Tribunal was about
financial burden of the Institution and learned
advocate Mr. P. A. Jadeja also admitted before
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/347/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/01/2025
undefined
this Court that on account of continuing the
petitioners to what extent, the reduction of
students is and whether the financial burden on
the Institution is in anyway due to the
petitioners or not are the matter of evidence.
On perusal of order passed by the Tribunal, the
Court finds that the Tribunal in paragraph No.
19 observed as under :-
"19. It also reveals from the record that
there was a huge reduction of the students
in Mechanical Branch of opponent No.1
institution and opponent No.1 has started
the process for relieving some of the
employees for reducing the financial
burden of the institution. Therefore, if
any interim relief is granted in favour of
the applicants, then opp. No.1 institution
will suffer heavy financial loss. On the
other hand, if any interim injunction is
not granted in favour of the applicants,
then the applicants will loss their jobs
and they also suffer financial loss but
considering that opp. No.1 institution is
self-finance institution imparting
education to needy students then
individual interest should not be
protected against the institutional
interest otherwise due to financial
burden, if the institution is shut down,
that will affect the carrier of many
students and staff also, which is not
desirable situation. Moreover, even no
interim protection is granted to the
applicants, though the applicants succeed
in the present proceedings, then the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/347/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/01/2025
undefined
applicants will get all the financial
benefits at the time of final adjudication
of the present applicants. Therefore, even
if no interim protection is granted to the
applicants, they will not suffer huge
financial loss permanently. Hence,
argument of Mr. S. H. Munjyasara is not
acceptable for granting ad-interim relief
in favour of the applicants."
11. The aforesaid observations made by the Tribunal
would indicate that the Tribunal had
predominantly considered the aspect about
financial loss that may be caused to the
respondents No.1 and 2 Institution which is an
extraneous consideration and such submission was
not there even in the affidavit-in-reply filed
by the respondents No.1 and 2 before the
Tribunal. Such consideration not based on any
evidence cannot be accepted. Accordingly,
keeping all the rights and contentions of both
the parties to lead evidence about all other
aspects only on the ground of extraneous
consideration and overall conduct of the
respondents, the present petitions are required
to be allowed. The Tribunal has not taken into
consideration the overall conduct of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/347/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/01/2025
undefined
respondents as described in foregoing paragraphs
and has gone on to appreciate the fact which is
not supported by any evidence about financial
burden. Accordingly, all these petitions are
required to be allowed by quashing and setting
aside the impugned order dated 24.12.2024 passed
in each of the petitions and the aforesaid
orders are quashed and set aside. As the main
matters are pending before the Tribunal, the
Tribunal is directed to hear the parties and
decide all these applications within a period of
six months but in any case latest by 31.7.2025.
It is clarified that this Court has not examined
the merits of the matter and any observation
made by this Court may not influence the
proceedings before the trial Court as those are
only tentative in nature.
12. With the aforesaid directions, all the present
petitions are Allowed. Rule made absolute to the
aforesaid extent only. No order as to costs.
13. At this juncture, it was pointed out by
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/347/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/01/2025
undefined
learned advocate Mr. P. A. Jadeja that before
the Tribunal now the matter is listed on
4.4.2025 and therefore, in case if the
respondents make an application for early
hearing of the group of applications, the
Tribunal is directed to consider the same.
14. In view of quashing of the impugned order
vacating the interim relief, the original relief
operating in favour of the petitioners shall
stand restored.
(NIRZAR S. DESAI,J)
Pallavi
