Gujarat High Court

Harshaben Vechatbhai Patelia vs State Of Gujarat on 19 September, 2025

                                                                                                            NEUTRAL CITATION




                           C/SCA/9265/2017                                  JUDGMENT DATED: 19/09/2025

                                                                                                             undefined




                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                     R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9265 of 2017
                                                         With
                                     R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9257 of 2017
                                                         With
                                     R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9258 of 2017
                                                         With
                                     R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9262 of 2017
                                                         With
                                     R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9263 of 2017
                                                         With
                                     R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9267 of 2017
                                                         With
                                     R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9270 of 2017
                                                         With
                                     R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9272 of 2017
                                                         With
                                     R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9280 of 2017
                                                         With
                                     R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9302 of 2017


                      FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


                      HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
                      ==========================================================

                                  Approved for Reporting                   Yes           No
                                                                            ✓
                      ==========================================================
                                              HARSHABEN VECHATBHAI PATELIA
                                                          Versus
                                                 STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
                      ==========================================================
                      Appearance:
                      MR. SHALIN MEHTA WITH MS ADITI S RAOL(8128) for the Petitioner(s) No.
                      1
                      MS. MANISHA L. SHAH, AAG WITH MR. JAY MEHTA, AGP for the
                      Respondent(s) No. 1 - STATE
                      MS CHAITALI P DAVE(11693) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
                      NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
                      ==========================================================

                         CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT

                                                       Date : 19/09/2025
                                                   COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/9265/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/09/2025

undefined

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocates for the

respective respondents waive service of notice of rule on

behalf of respective respondents.

2. Since the issues involved in the present petitions

are almost identical in nature, hence, at the request of

learned advocates for the respective parties, the matters

are heard together and decided together and Special Civil

Application No. 9265 of 2017 is considered as lead

matter.

3. The present lead petition i.e. Special Civil

Application No. 9265 of 2017 is filed by seeking the

following reliefs:

"A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent authorities to make applicable the CAV Common Judgment dated 01.07.2016, more particularly para 52.1 thereof, passed by this Hon'ble Court in Special Civil Application no. 13621 of 2014 and other cognate matters to the petitioner;

B) Your Lordships may be pleased to pass cease and desist order prohibiting the respondent authorities from terminating the contractual service of the petitioner till the scheme continues;

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/9265/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/09/2025

undefined

C) Pending admission and final hearing of the present petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to restrain the respondent authorities from terminating the contractual service of the petitioner except for any disciplinary reason; and

D) Your Lordships may be pleased to pass any other and/or further order, as deemed fit, in the interest of justice."

4. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective

parties and learned AAG with learned AGP for the

respondent - State in the respective petitions.

5. It is pointed out that issue involved in the present

petition is now decided by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed in Special Civil Application 17474 of 2015

vide order dated 28.03.2027, relevant paragraphs of the

said order reads as under:

"52. For the foregoing reasons, the present group of petitions are partly allowed.

52.1 The prayer of the petitioners to regularise their contractual services and make them permanent on the establishment is rejected. Limited immunity that is made available to the petitioners is by allowing them to continue

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/9265/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/09/2025

undefined

on their contractual employment and not to be replaced by other set of contractual employees on ad-hocism. The petitioners shall be continued in the existing cadre as long as the said Scheme continues, but purely on contractual basis and such employment shall be coterminus with the scheme, subject to evaluation of their performance, service and disciplinary rules as may be made applicable to them. The respondent-State shall insist on periodical upgradation of knowledge, improvisation of technical skill and overall preparedness on the subject, so also on computerisation.

52.2 The challenge to the Government Resolutions dated December 23, 2013 and August 28, 2014 and the consequential process of recruitment undertaken in the year 2014 pursuant to the public advertisement dated August 28, 2014, succeeds qua the petitioners only. Those petitioner who have qualified in the last examination of the year 2014 shall be continued on contractual employment without insistence on their fresh appointment by the respondent- State.

The respondent-authorities shall renew the petitioners' contract of service on the same terms and conditions as continued so far

52.3 Those petitioners who have cleared the examination and not qualified in the process of recruitment of the year 2014, shall not be discontinued, if already on contractual service pursuant to their selection through legally permissible mode in the years 2009 and 2011.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/9265/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/09/2025

undefined

52.4 Those of the petitioners who have approached this Court after their termination on account of nonextension of their contractual employment, but otherwise given appointment after selection under the Rules/ on following public advertisement, shall be restored to continue on their original posts. This shall be considered as their contractual employment without any break.

52.5 It is being clarified that those appointments which have been made freshly pursuant to the aforementioned resolutions and process of selection under challenge in the year 2014, in no manner, shall be affected by this judgment.

52.6 It is being clarified that in absence of any policy of the State to grant permanency in any of the cadres at the District, Taluka or Gram Panchayat levels, the issue of the length of service of the petitioners deserves no adjudication. However, if any such policy in future is made by the State, the petitioners shall be at liberty to raise the contention of continuation and shall be entitled to raise the issue of the length of service from the date of their initial appointment. This Court has not concluded the said issue in the present group of petitions and has left the same for the petitioners to contend at an appropriate time in the future, if the occasion so arises.

52.7 As a parting note, it is being observed that this Court would fail in its duty if it does not act as a catalyst in

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/9265/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/09/2025

undefined

the words of the Apex Court and draws the attention of the State Government that if may need to take a policy decision in respect of creating permanent establishment where contractual appointments have continued for more than a decade and its continuation is still felt by gearing up at all levels. Since it entails large financial implication, a marathon exercise is begging the attention of the State.

Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. There shall be, however, no order as to costs."

6. It is also pointed out that identical issue is also

decided by the Division Bench of this Court passed in

Letters Patent Appeal No.983 of 2017 vide order dated

24.04.2018, relevant paragraphs of the said judgment

read are paragraphs 5 to 9, which reads as under:

"5. As against, learned advocate appearing for the respondents would contend that all the above aspects are considered by learned Single Judge in a detailed CAV Common Judgement in the context of Act 2005, various executive instructions contained therein and the decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of State of Haryana and Ors. vs. Piara Singh and Ors., Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. vs. Umadevi and other such decisions by referring to 4 levels namely State, District, Taluka and Village containing various posts and the qualification of individual writ petitioners with their work experience has given

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/9265/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/09/2025

undefined

limited relief which do not require any interference and appeal deserves to be dismissed.

6. Having heard learned Asst. Government Pleader for the appellant-State and learned advocate for the respondents for the sake of convenience, we reproduced herein above the directions contained in para 52 of the order impugned, which also formed part of our oral order dated 19.2.2018 passed in this appeal.

7. Since the prayer to regularise the contractual service of the writ petitioners and to make them permanent on the establishment is rejected by learned Single Judge, limited benefit made available to them was direction to the authority to continue the contractual employment and that they are not to be replaced by other set of contractual employees on ad-hoc basis. Further while passing such order learned Single Judge has taken care of existing educational qualifications and work experience of each of the employees and readiness on their part to undergo any kind of training so as to improvisation of technical skill and overall preparedness on the subject, so also on computerisation.

8. The directions of above in nature issued by learned Single Judge in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are in consonance with law laid down by the Apex Court, to which, reference is made in the decisions and it is trite that nature of employment namely contractual on which employee is serving is not to be

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/9265/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/09/2025

undefined

replaced by another set of employees with same terms and conditions.

9. Considering the object of the Act, 2005 namely to provide employment in rural area by the Central Government and substantial cost to be incurred for and administrative side namely payment of wages and salary is to be borne by the Central Government under Rule 22 and State Government is fastened with the liability with the cost of unemployed allowances payable under the scheme and only 1/4th of the material cost of the scheme including payment of wages to skilled and semi-skilled workers subject to provisions of Schedule II, we find no substance in the challenge to the order impugned passed by learned Single Judge in this appeal filed by the State of Gujarat and in absence of merit it is dismissed."

7. Considering the submissions made at the bar, the present captioned petitions are partly allowed.

8. The prayer of the petitioners in respective captioned

petitions to regularize their contractual services and

make them permanent on the establishment is rejected.

Limited immunity that is made available to the

petitioners is by allowing them to continue on their

contractual employment and not to be replaced by other

set of contractual employees on ad-hocism. The

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/9265/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/09/2025

undefined

petitioners in respective captioned petitions shall be