Gujarat High Court
Khyati Jayantilal Mendpara vs State Of Gujarat on 10 October, 2025
Author: Nikhil S. Kariel
Bench: Nikhil S. Kariel
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8405/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8405 of 2025
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8720 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL
========================================================
==
Approved for Reporting Yes No
========================================================
KHYATI JAYANTILAL MENDPARA & ANR.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
========================================================
Appearance:
MR VAIBHAV A VYAS(2896) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
MR ADITYA PATHAK ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1,2
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 3,4
========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL
Date : 10/10/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned Advocate Mr.Vaibhav A. Vyas appearing on behalf of
the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Aditya Pathak
appearing on behalf of the respondent - State.
2. By way of these petitions, the petitioners challenge an order dated
27.04.2025 whereby the petitioners have been given appointment to the
post of Laboratory Technicians, Class-III insofar as the said order envisages
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8405/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
that the appointment of the petitioners would be on fixed pay of
Rs.40,800/- for a period of five years whereafter their services would be
considered for long term basis.
3. Before entering into the merits of the petitions, to this Court, it
would appear that the present situation has occurred only on account of the
complete non-application of mind on behalf of the officers concerned and
also on account of the officers attempting to cover-up a mistake which has
occurred on their part sometimes in the year 2012.
3.1. The order also reflects an absolute unmindfulness of the State
Authorities to the situations that taken place on the ground and whereas, to
this Court, it would appear that this Court will be failing in its duties as a
Constitutional Court not to take cognizance of the unmindfulness and not
to pass appropriate orders for imposing costs and passing of strictures
against the officers of the State Government and if need be, against the
State Government itself.
4. The facts leading to filing of the petitions being that the respondent
no.2 i.e. the Commissioner of Health and Medical Services, had issued an
advertisement in the year 2012 for appointment of candidates in various
cadres under the health department, the advertisement inter alia being for
the post of Junior Pharmacist, Laboratory Technician etc. and for the
purpose of present petitions, the advertisements inter alia being for the post
of Laboratory Technician (Public Health) in the pay scale of Rs.5200-20200
(grade pay - 2800) and the post of Laboratory Technician (Medical Services)
in pay scale of Rs.9300-34800 (grade pay - 4200) and Laboratory Technician
(Medical Education) in the pay scale of Rs.5200-20200 with a grade pay of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8405/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
20800 and the post of Laboratory Assistant in the pay scale of Rs.5200-
20200 with grade pay of 1900.
4.1. It would appear that since the eligibility criteria for the post of
Laboratory Technician as well as Laboratory Assistant were identical and
whereas, the petitioners having the said qualifications, the petitioners had
applied for being appointed to both the posts. After the selection process,
the petitioners came to be selected to the post of Laboratory Assistant
(Medical Education), Class-III vide an order dated 29.06.2013 in a fixed pay
of Rs.5300/- with a condition that upon satisfactory completion of five
years period, the petitioners would be put in regular pay scale. It would
appear that the petitioners had joined services and after having completed
the five years' fixed pay period, the petitioners were absorbed in the regular
pay scale w.e.f. 01.07.2018.
4.2 On the other hand, it would appear that in the interregnum,
somewhere in the year 2016, the petitioners appeared to have been called by
the respondents for document verification in connection with their
applications for appointment to the post of Lab Technician Class III and
whereas the petitioners had remained present with the appropriate
documents and whereafter nothing had been heard from the respondents
for considerable long period of time. It would appear that thereafter, that is
on 02.06.2022, the respondents had published a revised merit list for the
post of Lab Technician ( Medical Education ) Class III with regard to
Advertisement No. 10 of 2022 and whereas, according to the petitioners,
the said list contained names of candidates, who were less meritorious than
the present petitioners and whereas, the said candidates were appointed to
the post of Lab Technician in the year 2013 and 2014 and after successful
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8405/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
completion of five years of fixed pay, the services of such candidates less
meritorious than the petitioners had also been regularized/confirmed. The
petitioners, on noticing persons who were less meritorious than the
petitioners in the merit list of Laboratory Technicians, had made
representations in the year 2022 i.e. immediately after the revised merit list
was published, for being appointed to the post of Lab Technicians from the
post of Lab Assistants more particularly on regular scale. It was intimated to
the petitioners, vide a communication dated 30.09.2022 that the case of the
petitioners would be considered upon a final merit list for the post of
Laboratory Technician being published. It would appear that the petitioners
had against submitted representation and whereas the same had resulted in
the petitioners being once again called for document verification in the
month of December 2024 and whereas ultimately, vide the impugned order
dated 27.04.2025, the respondents had appointed the petitioners to the post
of Laboratory Technicians ( Medical Education ) - Class III, as fresh
appointees on a fixed pay for a period of five years to be considered for
regularization after successful completion of the period of five years. Being
aggrieved and dissatisfied with such an order that the petitioners have
approached this Court albeit submitting that the petitioners, ought to have
been appointed as permanent /confirmed employees in the post of Lab
Technicians ( Medical Education) Class III more particularly taking into
account the the fact that the petitioners have already completed five years as
Laboratory Assistants and have been confirmed on the said post as far as
back in the year 2018.
5. At this stage, it would also be relevant to mention that the present
petitions had been heard by this Court on 11.09.2025 and whereas this
Court had partly dictated the order on the said date and whereas in the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8405/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
midst of the dictation of the decision, learned Assistant Government
Pleader Mr. Aditya Pathak had requested that this Court may not proceed
further and that the authorities may be permitted to look at the issue afresh.
At the request of learned AGP the matter had been today and whereas
today, learned AGP tenders copy of a communication received from the
Under Secretary of the Health and Family Welfare Department dated
09.10.2025 whereby it is informed to the learned AGP that since
appointment to the petitioners is on a different post therefore, the
petitioners are required to undergo five years fixed pay as per the policy of
the State Government. For good measure, the Under Secretary, has
intimated that since the petitioners have not joined on the post where they
were given fresh appointment, for a period of five years, the petitioners
would not have a locus standi to contest this petition.
6. To this Court it would appear that the action on part of the officers
of the State Government, reflects absolute non application of mind,
absolute unmindfulness and a tendency to treat sub-ordinate employees as
being inconsequential.
7. Having heard the learned Advocates and having perused the
documents, it clearly appears to this Court that the entire conundrum, has
happened on account of the negligence/connivance/malice on part of the
officers of the State Government and whereas the burden of the
negligence, non application of mind and malice of the officers of the State
Government, is passed over upon the petitioners to pay. The above
observation on the basis that the petitioners, had applied in pursuance to an
advertisement issued by the respondents for selection both to the post of
Laboratory Assistants and Laboratory Technicians and whereas initially, the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8405/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
petitioners had been appointed to the post of Laboratory Assistants in the
year 2013 and whereas the petitioners, had continued as such for a period of
five years where upon satisfactorily completing the period, the services of
the petitioners were regularized.
8. On the other hand, it would appear that the entire selection process
had been supremely bungled by the State Authorities, and whereas it
appears that for a selection which had been conducted in the year 2012, to
reach a quietus, the State Authority had waited for more than 13 years. The
bungling part being clear from the fact that in the year 2016, the petitioners
were called for document verification and whereas for a period of around
six years thereafter, nothing further had happened more particularly the
document verification to the post of Laboratory Technicians i.e the post on
which the petitioners have now been appointed. That the respondents had
thereafter published a merit list and a revised merit list in the year 2022 and
in the year 2024 and whereas the merit list, clearly reflected that persons
who were less meritorious than the petitioners, had been appointed as
Laboratory Technicians and had also been confirmed. It is in response to
such an injustice that the petitioners had made an application for being
appointed as Laboratory Technicians and whereas the impugned order, is
ostensibly passed by the respondents to obviate the injustice which had been
caused to the petitioners.
9. Thus it would appear that though the petitioners who were more
meritorious than candidates who had been appointed on the post of
Laboratory Technicians, had not been appointed on the said post and
whereas they had been appointed on a similar but a post of lesser
importance in the hierarchy that is of the post of Laboratory Assistant. The
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8405/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
petitioners having worked there for five years on fixed pay and having been
confirmed on the said post, and even having worked for more than seven
years thereafter, in the interregnum, noticing the discrepancy about
candidates with less merit, having been appointed on the said post had
submitted representations which had ultimately resulted in the petitioners
being appointed on the said post. The above chronology is reiterated to
highlight the position that at no point of time, the petitioners were
responsible for the conundrum. It is the fault of the officers of the State
Government that the petitioners though meritorious, were not appointed on
the post of Laboratory Technicians and were appointed on the post of
Laboratory Assistants. It is also the fault of the State employees that
candidates who had scored lesser marks in merits during the selection of
Laboratory Technicians had been appointed on the said post whereas more
meritorious candidates were appointed on a similar but a post of lesser
importance that is the post of Laboratory Assistants.
10. Thus the petitioners, on account of the fault of the State Officers,
could not be appointed on the higher post and whereas upon the State
Authorities being informed about such a discrepancy, the State Authorites
had appointed the petitioners on the post of Laboratory Technicians as a
fresh appointees.
11. To this Court as observed hereinabove, the petitioners, are being
punished on account of the fault of the State officers. To this Court it
would appear that upon the State officers realizing that more meritorious
candidates had not been appointed to the post of Laboratory Technicians,
the State officers, ought to have rectified their mistake immediately by
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8405/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
appointing to the petitioners to the said post in question and whereas the
period of five years fixed pay, which has to be compulsorily undergone by
newly recruited employee, should have been treated to have been completed
when the petitioners had completed the same as Laboratory Assistants. On
account of the fault of State Officers, the petitioners who had undergone
the five years fixed pay period in the post of Laboratory Assistants should
not have been required to undergo the five years fixed pay period once again
on the post of Laboratory Technicians. Thus it would appear that on one
hand, the entire selection process had been completely bungled by the
officers of the State Government and whereas the punishment for such
bungling, has been passed over to the petitioners who had no role to play in
the entire issue. It also appears that though, an opportunity had been given
to the State officers, the officers have remained adamant on their stand and
have reiterated their stand that since the petitioners have been appointed on
a new post that is the post of Laboratory Technician as against the
petitioners' original appointment on the post Laboratory Assistants
therefore the petitioners would have to compulsorily undergo five years fix
pay period once again, without any reference to the fact that it is on account
of the fault, mistake, negligence, non application of mind of the State
officers that the petitioners had been wrongly appointed to the post of
Laboratory Assistants at the first place. Under such circumstances, the
following directions are passed by this Court:
[1] Impugned order dated 27.04.2025 is quashed and set aside to
the extent that the said order requires the petitioners to be appointed
as a fresh appointees on the post of Laboratory Technicians.
[2] The petitioners shall be treated as regular appointees on the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8405/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
post of Laboratory Technicians, on the date the petitioners were
appointed on the post of Laboratory Assistants Class III and whereas
the petitioners would be entitled to all consequential benefits
including financial benefits on account of the same.
[3] Insofar as the submission made by learned Advocate Mr. Vyas
for considering the case of the petitioners for being appointed as
Laboratory Technician in the Ahmedabad itself, the petitioner would
be at liberty to make an appropriate representation to the
respondents, more particularly as per the policy of the State
Government and the same shall be considered by the authorities in
accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date the
same is submitted.
[4] The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State
of Gujarat is directed to conduct the disciplinary proceedings against
all those officers who were responsible for the problems cropping in
the selection to the post of Laboratory Technicians.
[5] Cost quantified at Rs. 50,000/- each is directed to be paid to
the present petitioners. The amount of cost shall be recovered by the
State Government that is the Health and Family Welfare Department
from the officers who were part of the process whereby order dated
27.04.2025 had been passed.
[6] The Chief Secretary, State of Gujarat shall ensure that the
above order shall be strictly complied with and whereas appropriate
noting shall be made in the service book of all such officers
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8405/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
concerned who were responsible for passing order dated 27.04.2025.
[7] Appropriate compliance shall be reported to this Court on
28.11.2025 on which date the matter shall be listed. For all other
purpose the petitions stand disposed of as allowed.
(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J)
NIRU
