Gujarat High Court
Kumar Ashokbhai Pandya vs State Of Gujarat on 13 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3506/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3506 of 2020
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J. SHELAT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==========================================================
KUMAR ASHOKBHAI PANDYA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. PRACHI UPADHYAY for MR. VAIBHAV A VYAS(2896) for the
Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR. PARTH PATEL, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER/PP for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 13/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Assistant Government
Pleader Mr. Parth Patel waives service of notice of Rule on
behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Though served, none
appeared for the respondent No.3 and as such, the presence of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3506/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/11/2025
undefined
respondent No.3 is not required to decide the present matter.
2. With consent of learned Advocates for respective parties, the
matter is taken up for hearing.
3. Heard learned Advocate Ms. Prachi Upadhyay for learned
Advocate Mr. Vaibhav A. Vyas for the petitioner and learned
Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Parth Patel for the
respondent Nos.1 and 2.
4. The present writ application is filed under Article 14, 16, 21 and
226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:
"8. The petitioner respectfully prays that on the basis of the facts and
circumstances as mentioned hereinabove and which may be urged at
the time of hearing, the Honourable Court may be pleased to issue a writ
of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the
respondent authorities and may be pleased to:-
(A) Quash and set aside the communication dated 24.1.2020, Arinexure-
A to this petition, and consequently restrain the respondent authorities
from terminating the service of the petitioner, and
(B) Direct the respondent authorities to grant the regular pay-scale of
Rs. 8000-13500/- to the petitioner with effect from his passing the Ph.D.
i.e. 17.7.2017, and consequently make payment of arrears of pay and
allowances to the petitioner with interest at the rate which the Hon'ble
Court may consider just and proper in the facts of the case,
(C) Pending admission and final disposal of this petition the Honourable
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3506/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/11/2025
undefined
Court may be pleased to stay the operation, implementation and
execution of the impugned communication dated 24.1.2020, Annexure-A
to this petition, and/ or
(D) Pending admission and final disposal of this petition the Honourable
Court may be pleased to restrain the respondent authorities from
terminating the service of the petitioner, and/ or
(E) Pending admission and final disposal of this petition the Honourable
Court may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to maintain
status-quo qua the service conditions of the petitioner, and
(F) Pending admission and final disposal of this petition the Honourable
Court may be pleased to restrain the respondent authorities from making
any recovery from the petitioner, and
(G) Pending admission and final disposal of this petition the Honourable
Court may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider
the case of the petitioner for grant the regular pay-scale.
(H) Award the cost of this petition, and
(1) Grant any other relief or pass any other order which the Honourable
Court may consider as just and proper in the facts of the case."
5. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONER:
5.1. At the outset, learned Advocate Ms. Upadhyay would submit
that the impugned communication dated 24th January 2020
passed by respondent No.2 herein whereby, decision taken to
terminate the service of petitioner, is ex facie erroneous,
perverse, contrary to condition No.18 of N.O.C., issued in
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3506/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/11/2025
undefined
favour of the respondent No.3 - College thereby allowed the
college to appoint "Assistant Professor (Vocal) - Adhyapak
Sahayak (Vocal)".
5.2. Learned Advocate Ms. Upadhyay would further submit that as
per condition No.18 of the N.O.C. dated 9th March 2007,
which is placed reliance upon by respondent No.2 while
terminating the service of petitioner, it is nowhere whispered in
such condition that on not getting Ph.D. Degree within five
years from the date of appointment by petitioner, his service
requires to be terminated. So, such decision of respondent
authority requires to be quashed and set-aside by this Court.
5.3. Learned Advocate Ms. Upadhyay would respectfully submit
that neither appointment order of petitioner stipulates such
condition nor in fact condition No.18 of N.O.C. dated 9th
March 2007 issued by respondent No.2 in favour of the
respondent No.3 stipulate any such condition of termination,
in a case where petitioner did not obtain Ph.D. degree within
stipulated period. It is respectfully submitted that when
impugned decision is dehors such N.O.C. and so also passed
erroneously, this Court must exercise its power under Article
226 of the Constitution of India to quash and set-aside such
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3506/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/11/2025
undefined
arbitrary decision of respondent authority.
5.4. Learned Advocate Ms. Upadhyay would further submit that in
the year 2017, the petitioner in fact awarded a degree of Ph.D.
and as such, case of the petitioner to get regular pay scale was
in fact forwarded by respondent No.3 to respondent No.2 on
28th November 2017, but instead of taking any positive
decision on such proposal, petitioner was served with
impugned communication thereby his service sought to be
terminated. It is submitted that at the given point of time,
petitioner could not complete his Ph.D. due to non-availability
of guide and in fact, extension sought for by petitioner was
duly granted. All these facts not in dispute as nothing contrary
brought by respondents on record.
5.5. So making the above submissions, learned Advocate Ms.
Upadhyay would request this Court to allow the present writ
application by quashing and set-aside the impugned
communication dated 24th January, 2020, whereby decision
taken to terminate service of petitioner.
6. SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENT NO.1:
6.1. Per contra, learned AGP Mr.Patel would submit that there is
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3506/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/11/2025
undefined
no error committed by respondent No. 2 while directing
respondent No. 3 to pass the an order of termination, vide its
impugned communication dated 24th January 2020, inasmuch
as, the petitioner having not fulfilled condition No. 18 of the
N.O.C. granted by respondent No. 2 in favor of respondent
No. 3. It is submitted that as per condition No. 18 of the
N.O.C., an Assistant Professor (Adhyapak Sahayak) appointed
by respondent No. 3 requires to obtain a degree of Ph.D.
within five years, with further extension of one year. As the
petitioner having not obtained Ph.D. degree within such period
of time, the respondent authority well within its right to
terminate the service of the petitioner.
6.2. Learned AGP Mr. Patel would further submit that when the
proposal sent by respondent No. 3 on 28th November 2017 to
grant regular benefits to the petitioner, having obtained Ph.D.
degree, but it was not brought to the notice of the respondent
authority by college concerned that the petitioner failed to
obtain Ph.D. within the requisite period of time. It is submitted
that the principle of natural justice was also observed by giving
personal opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Thus, no
grievance survived of petitioner.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3506/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/11/2025
undefined
6.3. So, according to learned AGP Mr. Patel, this Court should not
interfere with the impugned decision of the respondent
authority communicated to respondent No.3 vide its impugned
communication dated 24th January 2020.
7. No other and further submissions are being made.
8. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the
respective parties and after going through the documents
placed on record and previous order passed by this Court,
following emerges;
8.1. The respondent No. 2 accorded its sanction - N.O.C. in favour
of respondent No. 3 to appoint Assistant Professor - Adhyapak
Sahayak vide its communication dated 9th March 2007 on
several conditions. The appointment of petitioner on post of
Adhyapak Sahayak (Vocal), pursuance of said N.O.C.
8.2. As per condition No. 18, it would suggest that any such
Assistant Professor - Adhyapak Sahayak appointed on a fixed
pay would not entitle to receive any other pay and/or
allowances till five years. It further observed in such condition
that on successfully completing five years of such services and
Adhyapak Sahayak gets Ph.D. degree within such period,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3506/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/11/2025
undefined
thereafter, on analyzing his services, if found suitable, he will
be appointed on a regular pay scale.
8.3. The plain reading of condition No. 18 of the aforesaid N.O.C.
dated 9th March 2007 nowhere whispered that such Adhyapak
Sahayak if failed to get Ph.D. degree within five years or any
extended period, then, requires to be terminated from his
services.
8.4. Having unable to complete and obtain Ph.D. degree within five
years of his appointment, petitioner sought for extension of
time to complete his Ph.D., as according to petitioner, due to
non-availability of guide, he could not complete his Ph.D. in
time, such extension readily accepted by respondent No.3
college then such request forwarded to office of respondent
No.2 vide its office letter dated 27th August, 2014.
8.5. Thereafter, petitioner conferred with degree of Ph.D. on 17th
July 2017 and his case for regular pay scale forwarded by
respondent No.3 college to respondent No.2 vide its
communication letter dated 28th November 2017. The same
was not considered by respondent No.2, instead took aforesaid
decision of termination of service of petitioner.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3506/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/11/2025
undefined
8.6. The impugned decision taken by respondent No. 2,
communicated through its letter dated 24th January 2020 to
respondent No. 3 - College, would suggest that as the petitioner
failed to obtain decree of Ph.D. within five years from his
appointment in respondent No. 3 - College, his service is
ordered to be terminated.
8.7. This Court vide its order dated 7th February 2020, having
considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances germane from
the record, granted ad-interim relief, whereby, directed the
respondent not to terminate the service of the petitioner.
9. If this Court analysis the entire set of facts germen on record
and see the reply of the respondent authority, which unable to
meet any of the submissions so made by the petitioner in this
petition, inasmuch as, unable to substantiate the reason
weighed with the respondent authority when ordered the
termination of the petitioner.
10. In fact, I have minutely gone through reply submitted by the
respondent, but unable to find any good reason assigned by the
respondent, thereby, it can sustain its decision communicated
to respondent No. 3 vide its impugned communication dated
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3506/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/11/2025
undefined
24th January 2020. As observed hereinabove and as such, the
fact remain that nowhere in aforementioned condition No. 18
of the N.O.C. remotely suggests the termination of Adhyapak
Sahayak, follows on not obtaining Ph.D. degree in time.
11. In view of the aforesaid facts and above stated reasons, the
impugned communication dated 24th January 2020, issued by
respondent No. 2 to respondent No. 3, thereby, directed
respondent No. 3 - College to terminate the service of the
petitioner, requires to be interfered with by this Court while
exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, having found such decision not only erroneous, perverse,
but arbitrary in nature, thereby, violative of Article 14, 16 and
also 21 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the impugned
communication dated 24th January 2020 is hereby quashed and
set aside.
12. At the same time, so far as prayer No. B of para-8 made in the
present petition is concerned, when proposal of respondent
No.3 dated 28th November, 2017 forwarded to respondent No.2
to grant such benefit was remain pending when impugned
communication issued by respondent No.2, in this background
of facts, according to my view, it would be more desirable and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3506/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/11/2025
undefined
appropriate that respondent No.2 takes appropriate decision
on such proposal. Thus, at this stage, aforesaid relief not
granted by this Court.
13. In view of foregoing reasons, following conclusion and
direction;
13.1. The impugned communication dated 24th January 2020 no
longer survives, having quashed by this Court as aforesaid.
13.2. In view of aforesaid, now respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are hereby
directed to consider the proposal of respondent No.3 dated
28th November, 2017 forwarded to respondent No.2
(Annexure-H), in turn consider the case of the petitioner for
regular pay scale, as undisputedly, the petitioner possessed
degree of Ph.D. w.e.f. 17th July 2017.
13.3. The appropriate reasoned order in this regard shall be passed
by the concerned respondents on or before 31st December
2025, either granting or not granting benefit of regular pay
scale to petitioner. The copy of such decision shall be provided
to the petitioner.
14. It goes without saying that if such decision of the respondents
not found in favour of the petitioner, it is open for petitioner to
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3506/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/11/2025
undefined
challenge such decision before the appropriate Court/Tribunal,
in accordance with law.
15. Further, when this Court has already quashed the impugned
communication dated 24th January 2020 issued by respondent
No. 2, the service of the petitioner, protected by the interim
order of this Court dated 7th February 2020, should not be
disturbed without due process of law by the respondent.
16. In view of the foregoing conclusion, the present writ
application is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule made
absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. Direct service is
permitted.
(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J)
NILESH
