Gujarat High Court
Sadhna Vidya Mandal Through President, ... vs State Of Gujarat on 23 September, 2025
Author: Nikhil S. Kariel
Bench: Nikhil S. Kariel
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10010/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10010 of 2025
==========================================================
SADHNA VIDYA MANDAL THROUGH PRESIDENT, SARLABEN
VASANTLAL JOSHI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. SHAILI A KAPADIA(3453) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR ADITYA PATHAK, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,3
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL
Date : 23/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Arpit Kapadia for learned Advocate
Ms. Shaili Kapadia for the petitioner and learned AGP Mr. Aditya Pathak
for the respondent-State.
2. Issue Rule returnable forthwith. Learned AGP Mr. Pathak waives
service of Rule on behalf of the respondents.
3. By way of this petition, the petitioner-Trust challenges an order
passed by the State Government through the Education Department dated
19.04.2025 and consequential order dated 23.04.2025 passed by the
District Education Officer, Bharuch, more particularly whereby the State
was seeking to recover an amount of Rs.80,24,478/- from the petitioner-
Trust, as having been paid to an employee, on account of the penalty of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10010/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/09/2025
undefined
dismissal imposed upon the said employee having been set aside by a
learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and as confirmed by the Hon'ble
Division Bench of this Court.
4. Considering the submissions made by learned Advocate Mr.
Kapadia and learned AGP Mr. Pathak and having perused the documents
on record, it would appear that the Hon'ble Division Bench, in Letters
Patent Appeal No. 386 of 2021 vide judgment dated 31.07.2024, whereby
the petitioner-Institution had sought to challenge judgment of the learned
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, dated 26.02.2021 in Special Civil
Application No. 11134 of 2004, whereby orders passed by the Gujarat
Higher Secondary School Services Tribunal, Ahmedabad in an appeal as
well as in a review application dated 23.03.2000 and 10.04.2001,
respectively, had been set aside, had been confirmed. The issue was with
regard to dismissal of an employee and whereas, it would appear that the
order of dismissal was challenged before the Tribunal, the same had been
confirmed by the Tribunal and whereas even a review application filed by
the employee had also been rejected and whereas vide the decision
referred to hereinabove, the learned Co-ordinate Bench, in a challenge by
the employee, had set aside the orders passed by the learned Tribunal.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10010/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/09/2025
undefined
4.1 It would appear that the judgment and order passed by the learned
Co-ordinate Bench had been challenged by the petitioner before the
Hon'ble Division Bench and vide the judgment referred to hereinabove,
the Hon'ble Division Bench, while confirming the decision of the learned
Co-ordinate Bench, had directed that consequential benefits to the
employee, should be paid within a certain time period and whereas, it was
clarified that in the event of an inter-se dispute as regards the burden of
payment of dues, the State Government was directed to make appropriate
payment and whereas liberty was left open in favour of the State to
adjust/recover such amount from the petitioner-Trust. It would appear
that the order impugned in the present petition, i.e. order dated
19.04.2025, is an order consequential to the order passed by the Hon'ble
Division Bench inasmuch as, while an amount of Rs. 80,24,478/- had
been paid to the employee, the State had sought to recover the same from
the petitioner-Institution.
4.2 It would further appear to this Court that before passing of the
order impugned, the State while it had not afforded any opportunity to the
present petitioner, it would also clearly appear that the State had not come
to any specific conclusion that the amount of back-wages/ arrears / retiral
benefits, paid to the employee on account of the order of termination
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10010/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/09/2025
undefined
being set aside, was on account of a deliberate error/malice on the part of
the petitioner-Trust. To this Court it would appear that the State, before
concluding that the amount paid to the employee is to be recovered from
the petitioner-Institution, was required to come to a conclusion that the
amount of arrears which had been paid to the employee, upon the
termination being set aside, was on account of some fault on the part of
the petitioner-Institution and whereas such determination could have been
arrived at by the competent authority after affording appropriate
opportunity to the present petitioner.
4.3 Since the orders impugned, suffer from the above lacunas, which to
this Court, are completely uncurable, yet, since it also appears that the
right of the State for determination, if they so desire, should also be left
open, while the impugned orders require appropriate interference, liberty
also requires to be reserved in favour of the State to take appropriate
proceedings, in case the State so desire, within a reasonable period of
time.
5. Having regard to the above observations, to this Court, the
following directions would suffice the ends of justice.
(i) The impugned order dated 19.04.2025 passed by the Education
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10010/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/09/2025
undefined
Department of the State Government, is hereby quashed and set aside.
(ii) As a natural corollary of the above, the impugned order dated
23.04.2025 passed by the District Education Officer, Bharuch, is also
quashed and set aside.
(iii) It would be open for the State to take appropriate action, as per the
liberty reserved in favour of the State at Paragraph No. 25 (C) of the
judgment dated 31.07.2024 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 386 of 2021,
within a reasonable time, if the State so desires.
(iv) It is clarified that in case the State seeks to undertake such an
exercise, as having been permitted by the Hon'ble Division Bench at
Paragraph No. 25 (C) of the decision referred to hereinabove, then the
State shall afford appropriate opportunity to the petitioner and shall also
ensure determination of the liability of payment.
6. It is clarified that none of the observations herein, shall reflect as if
this Court has made any observations as regards the substantive dispute
between the State and the petitioner.
7. Needless to clarify that all rights and contentions of both the parties
are kept open.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10010/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/09/2025
undefined
8. With the above observations and directions, the present petition
stands disposed of as partly allowed. Rule is made absolute to the above
extent.
(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J)
BDSONGARA
