Gujarat High Court
Goganbhai Nagabhai Madam vs State Of Gujarat on 17 September, 2025
Author: Nikhil S. Kariel
Bench: Nikhil S. Kariel
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/230/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 230 of 2023
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==========================================================
GOGANBHAI NAGABHAI MADAM
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR GAUTAM JOSHI, LR. SR. ADV. with MR. MEHUL A SHARMA and
VYOM H SHAH(9387) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR ADITYA PATHAK, ASST. 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 NIKHIL S. KARIEL
Date : 17/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr.Gautam Joshi
appearing with learned advocate Mr.Mehul Sharma and
learned advocate Mr.Vyom Shah on behalf of the petitioner
and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Aditya Pathak
appearing on behalf of the respondent - State.
2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought for
intervention of this Court insofar as setting aside final
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/230/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2025
undefined
seniority list dated 01.02.2023 published by the respondents.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had
been appointed as a Forest Guard vide order dated
12.08.2009 for a fixed period of 5 years on a fixed salary as
per the extant policy of the State Government. It is the case of
the petitioner that he had cleared the CCC examination from
ICT on 13.03.2012 within the contractual / probation period. It
is the case of the petitioner that the said certificate having
been accepted, the services of the petitioner were regularized
w.e.f. 12.08.2014 vide an order dated 29.06.2015.
3.1. It is the case of the petitioner that since the petitioner
had been informed after regularization that he would have to
clear the CCC examination once again, he had cleared the
same on 07.08.2016 from the Saurashtra University. It would
appear that while the placement of the petitioner in the
seniority list was appropriate upto the year 2020, yet, in the
year 2020, to be specific, vide seniority list dated 29.02.2020
reflecting position as on 01.01.2020, the petitioner's seniority
had been affected to his detriment on the ground of non-
clearance of CCC examination.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/230/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2025
undefined
3.2. It appears that though the petitioner had objected there-
against, the same did not yield any results and ultimately,
though the seniority of the forest guards had been converted
from Zone Level Cadre to State Level Cadre and provisional
State Level Seniority List had been published on 01.11.2022,
the position of the petitioner had been reflected wrong on the
specious ground that the petitioner did not clear the CCC
examination. It would appear that the petitioner had objected
there-against and while such objections were pending
consideration, the present petition had been preferred by the
petitioner.
3.3. It would also appear that during the pendency of the
petition, a final seniority list had been published without
redressing the grievance raised by the petitioner vide
seniority list dated 01.02.2023 and whereas, the said final
seniority list has also been challenged in the present writ
petition by amending the same.
4. Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Gautam Joshi appearing on
behalf of the petitioner would submit that the present issue
stands covered by two decisions of the Hon'ble Division
Benches of this Court. Learned Senior Advocate would firstly
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/230/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2025
undefined
rely upon decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench rendered in
Letters Patent Appeal No.129/2024 dated 15.07.2024 in case
of State of Gujarat and Ors. vs. Mahesh Sureshbhai Parmar
and Ors., and would submit that the Hon'ble Division Bench
has inter alia laid down that an employee who has been
regularized in service after completing 5 years' contractual
period chould not be terminated from service for non-clearing
of CCC examination.
4.1. It is further submitted by learned Senior Advocate that
in a decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in
Letters Patent Appeal No.376/2021 dated 20.07.2021 in case
of State of Gujarat vs. Kodiyatar Manda Amarabhai, the
Hon'ble Division Bench has clarified that the Government
Resolution dated 23.10.2015 inter alia could not be resorted
to with retrospective effect.
4.2. Learned Senior Advocate would further submit that in
any case, Government Resolution dated 23.10.2015 lays down
that an employee is required to clear the CCC examination
within a period of 2 years from the date of confirmation /
regularization and whereas, while the petitioner had been
regularized in service w.e.f. 12.08.2014, the petitioner had got
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/230/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2025
undefined
his second CCC certificate from the Saurashtra University on
07.08.2016. It is submitted that under such circumstances,
the seniority position of the petitioner could not have been
affected to his detriment and whereas, the same was required
to be restored more particularly considering that the
petitioner had complied with the terms of the Government
Resolution dated 23.10.2015.
5. The present petition is vehemently opposed by learned
AGP Mr.Pathak who would submit that the petitioner having
not passed the requisite examination during the period
stipulated by the State Government, it would not be open for
the petitioner to now contend that appropriate consequences
should not follow.
5.1. To a pointed query by this Court, more particularly as
regards the status of the decisions of the Hon'ble Division
Benches, learned AGP could not rely upon decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court where either of the decisions have
been interfered with.
6. Having considered the submissions made by learned
Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/230/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2025
undefined
learned AGP for the respondent - State, it would appear to
this Court that the issue raised in the present petition is
covered by the decisions of the Hon'ble Division Benches of
this Court referred to hereinabove.
6.1. At the first instance, observations of the Hon'ble Division
Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No.129/2024, more
particularly para-26 thereof being relevant, is reproduced
hereinbelow for benefit:-
"26. The case of the appellants entirely hinges on
the Government Resolution dated 23.10.2015. The
same will not apply to the respondents. The
appellants have treated the respondents as fresh
appointees from 2018-19 by wiping out their entire
service from the year 2007, which includes the
probation/contractual period. It is also an undisputed
fact that the respondents were never terminated from
the services on the ground that they had not passed
the CCC examination within the prescribed period.
The appellants have admitted the validity of the CCC
certificates possessed by the respondents at the time
of their appointments. The respondents were also
regularized and placed in regular pay scale after
completion of 5 years contractual period. Thus, the
conditions of the Resolution dated 23.10.2015 cannot
be invoked, after the respondents were regularized in
service. In wake of these undisputed facts, the
impugned action of treating the respondents as fresh
appointees could have been only taken during their
probation/contractual period, and not thereafter.
There is no provision of law shown to us, which
enables the appellants to take such action against
those employees, after they have been regularized in
service. The only period/time frame available to the
appellants to act or invoke the Government
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/230/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2025
undefined
instructions/ Resolutions, was during the probation or
contractual period, and if the State authorities have
failed to do so, they cannot tinker with the seniority
and treat the regular employees as fresh appointees.
Such an action will amount to putting the cart before
the horse, as the regular employees are being treated
as fresh appointees with retrospective effect from the
date of passing the CCC exams by curtailing the
probation period. Thus, the appellants have
absolutely acted without application of mind and
without realizing the consequences of their orders."
6.2. This Court would further refer to observations of the
Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in decision dated
20.07.2021 in Letters Patent Appeal No.376/2021.
Paragraph Nos.27 and 28 of the said decision being relevant
for the present purpose, are quoted hereinbelow for benefit:-
"27. On conjoint reading of Notification dated
23.10.2015 which has amended Rule 9A by inserting
words "or within a period of two years thereafter"
after the words "contractual basis" under Sub-rule(3)
of Rule 9A of Rules, 1967 and Government Resolution
dated 23.10.2015 which has substituted conditions
no.11(2) and 12(2) of the terms and condition for
appointment prescribed in Annexure-I of the
Government Resolution dated 4.6.2009 for
appointment on the posts of class-III and IV posts on
contract basis with fixed pay would mean that Rule
9A(3) is amended to the effect that the employee who
is appointed on contractual basis, is required to pass
CCC/CCC+ examination for computer knowledge
within a period of two years after contractual period
is over and on basis of such amendment which has
come into effect from 4.6.2009, clause 11(2) and
12(2) of the terms and conditions for appointment on
contractual basis in Annexure-I of the Government
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/230/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2025
undefined
Resolution dated 04.06.2009 have been substituted
by Government Resolution dated 23.10.2015.
Therefore, it cannot be said that Government
Resolution dated 23.10.2015 substituting clauses
11(2) and 12(2) of the terms and conditions for
appointment on contractual basis for fixed pay would
be applicable with effect from 4.6.2009 making it
compulsory for the employees who are appointed on
regular basis prior to coming into force of
Government Resolution dated 23.10.2015 to pass
CCC/CCC+ examination within two years from the
date of their regular appointment failing which
service of such employee would be terminated.
28. As the terms and conditions of appointment
on contractual basis stipulated in Government
Resolution dated 4.6.2009 have been substituted by
Government Resolution dated 23.10.2015, the
Learned Single Judge rightly held that Government
Resolution dated 23.10.2015 would be applicable
prospectively i.e. from 23.10.2015 and not
retrospectively and the concerned employee whose
service is regularised as per Government Resolution
dated 4.6.2009 as per Rule 9A(3)of the Rules,1967
which is amended by Notification dated 23.10.2015,
period of two years is to be considered from the date
of Government Resolution dated 23.10.2015 and not
from the date of regularisation of such employee."
7. Insofar as the applicability of Government Resolution
dated 23.10.2015 is concerned, a bare perusal of the said
resolution would reveal that the said resolution inter alia lays
down that an employee is required to clear the CCC
examination within a period of 2 years from the date of
resolution /regularization in service. It would appear in this
regard that while the services of the petitioner had been
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/230/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2025
undefined
regularized w.e.f. 12.08.2014, the petitioner had cleared the
CCC examination on 07.08.2016 i.e. within a period of 2 years
from the date of regularization.
7.1. Having regard to the position as noticed hereinabove,
more particularly considering the same from the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble Division
Benches of this Court, it would clearly appear to this Court
that upon the petitioner clearing the CCC examination on
07.08.2016, the respondents were required to appropriately
modify the seniority position of the petitioner i.e. restore his
original seniority, considering the petitioner to be in service
w.e.f. 12.08.2009. The respondents were also required to
ensure that the petitioner's name is appropriately placed in
the seniority list more particularly above the persons who
were originally junior to the petitioner in the cadre of Forest
Guard.
8. Having regard to the above discussion, observations and
conclusions, the following directions, to this Court, would
meet with the ends of justice:-
(i) The seniority list of Forest Guard dated 01.11.2023 is
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/230/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2025
undefined
interfered with to the extent of directing the respondents to
restore appropriate seniority position of the petitioner in the
seniority list considering his date of appointment as
12.08.2009 and also considering the fact that the petitioner
had cleared the CCC examination as per the terms of the
Government Resolution dated 23.10.2015.
(ii) The respondents, after complying with the above
direction, shall grant all consequential benefits to the present
petitioner on the basis of revised placement which shall be on
a position above juniors to the petitioner and shall grant
promotion and all other ancillary benefits to the petitioner
within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of
this order.
9. With the above observations and directions, the present
petition stand disposed of.
(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J)
Bhoomi
