Gujarat High Court
Bhupatsinh Bhurabhai Sidhav vs State Of Gujarat on 8 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11173/2019 ORDER DATED: 08/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11173 of 2019
==========================================================
BHUPATSINH BHURABHAI SIDHAV
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
ME MEET V JANI FOR DR.ABHISST K THAKER(7010) for the Petitioner(s)
No. 1
MR HENIL SHAH, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 08/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. This petition is filed for following prayers:
"25(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue writ of
Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction
quashing and setting aside the show cause notice dated
15.05.2019 being A/MHK/T-7-1549-51 by the respondent no.3;
(B) Pending hearing and final disposal of the petition, the
Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the respondents not to
terminate the services of the petitioner as beat guard Class-
III;
(C) Pending hearing and final disposal of the petition, the
Hon'ble Court be pleased to stay the operation,
implementation and execution of the show cause notice dated
15.05.2019 being A/MHK/T-7-1549-51 for termination of
petitioner;
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11173/2019 ORDER DATED: 08/07/2025
undefined
(D) xxxx"
2. The brief facts leading to filing of this petition are
such that the petitioner was appointed as Forest Guard in
the year 2003 in accordance with the Forest Guard
Recruitment Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the
`Forest Guard Rules'). That, on 15.5.2019, the respondents
asked the petitioner to provide details with regard to his
passing the basic training examination by stating that those
persons who had not passed the basic training examination
in accordance with the Guards (Training and Examination)
Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 2008)
could not be continued in service. By the impugned
communications, the services of the petitioner were sought to
be terminated.
The petitioner approached this Court by filing the present
petition, wherein by order dated 28.6.2019, this Court issued
notice and directed the respondents to maintain status-quo
with regards to service conditions of the petitioner.
3. Heard learned advocates for the parties.
3.1 Learned advocate Mr.Jani for the petitioner
submitted that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1992
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11173/2019 ORDER DATED: 08/07/2025
undefined
and the Rules applicable for appointment were the Rules
called the Guards (Subordinate Forest Service) Recruitment
Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to Rules of 1969). Relying
on Rules 6 to 8 of the said Rules, he submits that the Rule
8 of the Rules did not stipulate or have a circumstance that
on a failure to pass the Guards training examination, the
services will be terminated and that reliance on the Rules of
2008 is misconceived. He submitted that reading the Rules of
2008, it is clear that the same will be applicable to the
candidates selected for appointment to the posts of Guards
(Class III) in accordance with the Rules of 2004 and
therefore, these Rules are not applicable to the petitioner. He
further submitted that the petitioner's services were sought to
be terminated after 16 years of service, on the ground that
when the petitioner was recruited, he ought to have passed
the basic training examination, which is clearly misconceived
on two grounds (i) that such an action could not be taken
after 16 years of service and (ii) assuming for the sake of
argument the decision was so taken, the presumption of
applicability of Rules of 2008 was misconceived as they were
not applicable to the petitioner who was appointed pursuant
to the Rules of 1969. Learned advocate for the petitioner has
relied on the judgment dated 3.9.2020 passed in Special Civil
Application No.10653 of 2019, which pertains to similarly
situated persons and which is allowed by the said judgment
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11173/2019 ORDER DATED: 08/07/2025
undefined
by coordinate Bench and submitted that the same would
apply to the facts of this case and therefore this petition also
be allowed.
4. Learned AGP Ms.Shah for the respondent-state has
vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that Rule 6 of
2008 Rules specifically made it clear that if a direct recruit
forest guards fails to pass the post training examination, his
services shall be terminated and by virtue of the operation of
these rules, no fault can be found with the action of the
department. She submitted that even as per the 1969 Rules
a direct recruit forest guard was expected to possess and
undertake the examinations as provided under Rule 9 of the
1969 Rules. Therefore, the action of the respondent
authorities in issuance of show cause notice is justified and
this petition may be dismissed.
5. I have considered the submissions of rival parties
and also perused the material on record. Relevant Rules are
as under:
"Rules of 1969:
Rule 6:
To be eligible for appointment by direct selection to the post
of the Guards in the lower subordinate Forest Service,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11173/2019 ORDER DATED: 08/07/2025
undefined
candidate must:
(a) be not less than 18 years of age and not more than 25
years of age.
(b) have passed the Gujarat IV standard.
(C) Possess the following minimum standard of physique:
(D) FOR ADIVASI CANDIDATS:
(I) Height 5'1" or 1.5494 meters of 155 cms.
(II) Chest : NORMAL 30" or 0.7620 meters or 76 c.ms.
EXPANDED 32" or 0.8128 meters *81 cms).
MINIMUM EXPANSION 2" or Cms.
Rule 8:
After passing out of the medical examination the selected
candidates shall be required to undergo practical training in
the field for a period of two months. Thereafter, they shall
be sent in the Guards Training Class for Training of
through grounding in the theoretical and practical aspects of
forestry."
Rules of 2008:
Rule 1(2):
They shall apply to the candidates selected for appointment
to the post of Guards, Class III under the Guards, Class II
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11173/2019 ORDER DATED: 08/07/2025
undefined
(in the Gujarat Subordinate Forest Service in the Forest
Department) Recruitment Rules, 2004.
2(D) :
"Post training examination" means the examination held after
the training is over for candidates selected as Guards as per
appendix-A;
Rule 3 :
Every candidate selected for appointment to the post of
Guard shall require to undergo PRE-SERVICE TRAINING
for a period of six months (theoretical and practical) at the
Forestry Training School, Kakrapar.
Rule 4:
On successful completion of the training, the candidate shall
require to appear at the post training examination and shall
require to pass the same in not more than three chances.
Rule 6:
If a direct recruit fails to pass the examination as required
under these Rules, his service shall be terminated.
Rule 7(1) :
It prescribes the syllabus for training in Appendix A which
contains 9 subject + discipline, conduct excursion and tours
and sports and physical training + viva voice."
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11173/2019 ORDER DATED: 08/07/2025
undefined
6. It is undisputed that the petitioner was appointed
on the basis of 1969 Rules. Rule 6 of 1969 Rules would
indicate that the only stipulation in the Rule was that the
petitioner ought to pass his basic training examination.
Nowhere there is a stipulation that if a candidate fails to
pass his basic training examination, his services will be put
to an end. The notices dated 15.5.2019 would indicate that
the respondents have proceeded on the assumption that the
2008 Rules required that the petitioner ought to have passed
his basic training examination and having failed to do so, his
services ought to have been terminated. It is a specific case
in the Rules of 2008 that they apply to candidates who were
appointed pursuant to the selection made in accordance with
the Rules of 2004. The petitioner was appointed in the year
1992 and therefore the Rules of 2004 was not the Rules
pursuant to which the petitioner was selected and appointed
and therefore the 2008 Rules which have been pressed into
service for putting an end to the petitioner's tenure of service
is completely misconceived. The respondents have lost sight of
the fact that apart from pressing into service of Rules and
terminating the services of the petitioner after 16 years of
service, what is also evident is that the Rules of 2008 is
pressed into service, when in fact, the submission of learned
advocate Mr.Jani for the petitioner is to accepted that the
Rules of 2008 had no application inasmuch as the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11173/2019 ORDER DATED: 08/07/2025
undefined
recruitment Rules of 1969 were the Rules, pursuant to which
the petitioner was recruited. The Rules of 2008 were only in
context of the recruitment made in accordance with 2004
Rules.
7. The coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order
dated 3.9.2020 passed in Special Civil Application No.10653 of
2019, has allowed the petition, wherein the petitioners'
services were terminated and this Court, after discussing the
relevant Rules allowed the petitions. In the case of hand, the
petitioner approached this Court on the issuance of show
cause notice and status-quo was granted at the time of
issuance of notice.
8. It is brought to notice by learned advocate for the
petitioner that the petitioner is superannuating in the year
2027.
9. In view of the above, this petition is allowed. The
impugned show cause notices dated 15.05.2019 being
A/MHK/T-7-/1549-51 by the respondent no.3 are hereby
quashed and set aside. As the petitioner is superannuating in
the year 2027, all the consequential benefits shall be made
available to the petitioner, as if the impugned notices were
never passed. Needless to say that the same would also
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11173/2019 ORDER DATED: 08/07/2025
undefined
include terminal benefits and the petitioner would be entitled
to pension and pensionary benefits as per the service
conditions rules as if the impugned notices were never
passed. The said benefits will be paid to the petitioner
within a period of 8(eight) weeks from the date of receipt of
this order.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J)
SRILATHA
