Gujarat High Court
Manisha Dineshbhai Bhatol vs State Of Gujarat on 10 September, 2025
Author: A. S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12996/2019 ORDER DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12996 of 2019
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR DIRECTION) NO. 2 of 2019
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12996 of 2019
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15400 of 2019
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16168 of 2019
==========================================================
MANISHA DINESHBHAI BHATOL & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
HUNAIZA H QURESHI(8903) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8
MR. EKRAMA H QURESHI(7000) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8
MR AAKASH GUPTA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2 in SCA
Nos.12996/2019 &15400/2019
MS SHRUTI DHRUVE, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2 in SCA
No.16168/2019
MR RAJENDRA PATEL(645) for the Respondent(s) No.
10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,3,30,31,32,33,
34,35,36,37,38,39,4,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,5,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,5
7,58,59,6,7,8,9
MR RUTVIJ R PATEL(10615) for the Respondent(s) No.
10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,3,30,31,32,33,
34,35,36,37,38,39,4,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,5,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,5
7,58,59,6,7,8,9
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
Date : 10/09/2025
COMMON ORAL ORDER
1. At the outset, learned advocates appearing
for the respective respondents have submitted
that the issue is squarely covered by the
judgement and order dated 03.11.2023 passed by
the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Letters
Patent Appeal No.1313 of 2022 and allied matters.
It is further submitted that the SLP being SLP
No.12682 of 2024 was also filed against the said
judgement and order however, the same is also
dismissed vide order dated 26.04.2024.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12996/2019 ORDER DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
2. The present writ petitions have been filed
for the following prayers:
"7A.Be pleased to issue the writ of mandamus, writ in
the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction directing the respondents not to
terminate the services of the Petitioners as Adhoc
Asst. Professors (Class-II) (Computer Engineering) by
acting uupon clause 13 of the order dated 03.07.19 of
the respondent no 1 without considering the
petitioners for continuation on existing vacant posts
in computer engineering or in any other corresponding
branch, in the interest of justice.
B.That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct
the respondents to give a fair chance to the
petitioners for competing in the competitive GPSC
exams for the purpose of regular appointment to the
post of Asst. professor (Class-II) and not to
terminate the service of the petitioners in the inter
regnum.
C.Pending hearing and final disposal of the present
petition the respondents may be directed not to
terminate the services of the present petitioners by
acting upon the clause 13 of the order dated 03.07.19
of the respondent no 1, in the interest of justice."
3. It is noticed that on the similar issue, the
Coordinate Bench has held thus:
"5. Having noticed the issues as above and considered
the rival contentions canvassed, proceeding to
examine the controversy in its twin aspects, the
prayer of the petitioners to permit them to continue
on the post of Lecturers was never well-founded in
law. The appellants-petitioners were the Lecturers,
appointed in the Government Polytechnic Colleges on
ad-hoc basis. The fact is not in dispute that their
appointment was to last until the GPSC selectees
become available. The candidates in waiting, having
been selected pursuant to regular selection process,
are required to be posted as Lecturers. The GPSC
selectees having been available, the petitioners
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12996/2019 ORDER DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
could not stake their claim against such candidates.
They had no right to post, having regard to very
nature of appointment. They were aware about the
nature of their appointment and the conditions
governing their holding of post. The petitioners have
to pave the way. The right to continue on the post
ceased for the appellants-petitioners once the GPSC
selectees became available.
5.1 The law is settled in the above regard. In Dr.
Chanchal Goyal vs. State of Rajasthan[(2003) 3 SCC
485], the Supreme Court inter alia held that the
temporary or ad-hoc persons appointed for a specified
period or till the availability of the candidate
selected by the Public Service Commission, had no
right to the post. It was further held that non-
joining of the selected candidates, to replace the
appellant would also not confer right to hold the
post. The Supreme Court upheld the termination of the
appellant before it further holding that even the
doctrine of legitimate expectation would not apply in
such circumstances.
5.1.1 The Supreme Court in Dr. Chanchal Goyal (supra)
observed,
"Unless the initial recruitment is regularized
through a prescribed agency, there is no scope for a
demand for regularization. It is true that an ad-hoc
appointee cannot be replaced by another ad-hoc
appointee; only a legally selected candidate can
replace the ad-hoc or temporary appointee. In this
case it was clearly stipulated in the initial order
of appointment that the appellant was required to
make room once a candidate selected by the Service
Commission is available."
(para 8)
5.2 The above proposition of law applies to the facts
of the present case. In J & K Public Service
Commission and Ors. vs. Dr. Narinder Mohan and Ors.
[(1994) 2 SCC 630], the Supreme Court stated that it
cannot be laid down that even if ad-hoc appointee is
continued for a longer period, it would not justify
the relaxation of Rules or to regularise such
appointment.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12996/2019 ORDER DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
5.3 In State of Haryana v. Piara Singh[(1992) 4 SCC
118], the Supreme Court observed that the normal rule
is recruitment through the prescribed agency like
Public Service Commission. However, due to
administrative exigencies, the ad-hoc or temporary
appointment would be made. It was stated that
however, in such a situation, the temporary employee
must give way to the regularly selected candidates.
It was stated that the "appointment of the regularly
selected candidate cannot be withheld or kept in
abeyance for the sake of such an ad hoc or temporary
employee". The ad-hoc employee should be replaced
only by regularly selected employee, it was stated.
5.4 As regards the second facet of the challenge,
though independent yet interconnected, relating to
the Resolutions reducing the student-intake and the
resultant decrease in the number of sanctioned
faculties, it is to be accepted that the intake
approval and the number of teaching faculties bear a
correlation. The decision to reduce the student
intake was based on expert committee advice and after
undertaking the study of admission in the past years.
As the number of admissions declined in the past
academic years, the Resolution dated 07.02.2020
reducing the student intake was passed and
consequently, the Resolution dated 27.07.2020
providing for reduction in the sanctioned post of
Lecturers in the various branches of Diploma
Engineering.
5.5 As given out, in the academic year 2018-19, 438
seats remained vacant. Only 355 students were
admitted against the total intake of 3990. In the
same way, in the academic year 2019-20, against total
approved intake of 5062, only 3447 seats could be
filled-up. Large number of 1615 seats remained
vacant. These were the cogent facts, aspects and
circumstances, which guided the State Government to
take the decision to reduce the sanctioned intake and
the number of faculties. As also an another aspect,
which became relevant, namely, that the pattern of
teaching underwent change in the academic year 2019-
20 compared to earlier academic years as emphasis was
led on online programs, seminars, etc., rather than
traditional class room studies.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12996/2019 ORDER DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
5.6 The passing of Resolutions dated 07.02.2020,
29.02.2020 and 27.07.2020 was guided by such rational
considerations. The said Resolutions passed by the
Education Department were essentially policy
decisions. The were backed by proper factual data and
relevant inputs based on expert study, applied to
reduce the student intake and downsize the number of
sanctioned faculties. Not only that the decisions
were in the policy realm, they were eminently
reasonable and purposeoriented.
6. In view of the above legal and factual position,
both planks of challenge raised by the appellants-
petitioners have no merits.
7. It may be noted at this stage that in light of the
order dated 17.10.2022 passed by the Court, the
respondent authorities issued orders of appointment
dated 10.10.2022 to the GPSC selected candidates in
Mechanical and Electrical branch. These selected
candidates have joined their duties.
7.1 Apart all the aspects of the controversy
discussed and highlighted above, as per the details
submitted by the Government Pleader, minimal number
of ad-hoc lecturers are affected.
7.2 The position is indicated in the following table,
Diploma Staff Position of Lecturer Class-II
Sr. Branch POST DETAILS
No.
Approved GPSC Details of Vacant Adhoc Number
POST* selected selected Posts Lecturer of
candidates GPSC wait s Adhoc
appointed list working appoint
candidates in Govt. ees
Polytech require
nic d to be
colleges termina
ted
Engg. (8
Adhoc
+ 4
vacant)
Engg. Adhoc +
vacant)
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12996/2019 ORDER DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
7.3 Thus, it can be seen that in order to accommodate
seven wait-list candidates in mechanical branch,
three ad-hoc lecturers will have to vacate their
posts and their services would become liable to be
terminated. In electrical branch, five wait-list
candidates are required to be accommodated. For that,
there will be no need to terminate any of the ad-hoc
lecturers presently working in the different
Government polytechnic colleges.
8. While giving the above factual details, it was
stated on behalf of the Government authorities that
seats on which the GPSC selected candidates have not
joined, will be filled in by the GPSC waiting list.
9. For the foregoing reasons and discussion, in
addition to the reasons supplied by learned Single
Judge, the challenge in the writ petitions lacked
merit.
10. The petitions were rightly dismissed by learned
Single Judge. The impugned judgment and order of
learned Single Judge does not book any error.
11. All the fourteen Letters Patent Appeals are
liable to be dismissed. They are accordingly
dismissed.
Civil Applications will not survive in view of the
disposal of the Letters Patent Appeals."
4. It is not in dispute that the prayer clause
and facts as mentioned in the writ petition would
reveal that the present petitioners are similarly
situated to the appellants of the aforesaid
appeals and Division Bench of this Court has
confirmed the judgement and order passed by the
learned Single Judge by dismissing such appeals.
It is held that "in order to accommodate seven
wait-list candidates in mechanical branch, three
ad-hoc lecturers will have to vacate their posts
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12996/2019 ORDER DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
and their services would become liable to be
terminated."
5. Learned advocate Mr.Patel appearing for the
selected candidates has submitted that as per his
information, service of all the petitioners are
terminated and private respondents are already
appointed and are working.
6. Thus, in light of the aforesaid statement and
order of the Coordinate Bench, the present writ
petitions will not survive. The same are hereby
dismissed.
Registry to place a copy of this order in the
connected matter(s).
Sd/-
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
NVMEWADA/4,28
