[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Bhakta Kavi Narsinh Mehta University vs Amitkumar Lalitbhai Ghoricha on 10 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1100/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1100 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION/9398/2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1100 of 2025
==================================================
BHAKTA KAVI NARSINH MEHTA UNIVERSITY
Versus
AMITKUMAR LALITBHAI GHORICHA & ANR.
==================================================
Appearance:
MR DG SHUKLA(1998) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS. YASHVI R. SHAH(18270), ADVOCATE WITH MS. VIDHI MODI,
ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MS. SHRUTI DHRUVE, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J. L. ODEDRA
Date : 10/04/2026
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA)
[1] The respondent No.1 approached this Court by way of a
Special Civil Application seeking a direction to the appellant
herein to regularize his services as an Assistant Librarian.
[2] It was the case of the respondent No.1 that he was
appointed in the year 2020 on a contractual basis, and the
period of contract was for a period of 11 months. It was his
further case that this contract came to be extended from time to
time and was valid till 31.07.2025.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1100/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/04/2026
undefined
[3] The case of the respondent No.1 was that since he had
worked for more than 5 years, he was entitled to be regularized
and, therefore, the Special Civil Application.
[4] On 18.08.2025, the learned Single Judge, after considering
the arguments advanced by the appellant as well as by the
respondent No.1, proceeded to pass an interim order in the
following terms:-
"[1] Issue Notice to the respondent returnable on 30.09.2025.
[2] Preliminary objections as regards entertainability raised by the
University is rejected.
[3] By way of interim relief, the respondent- University is directed to
retain the services of the petitioner on the post of Assistant Librarian,
till suitable candidature is appointed on the said post on regular basis.
[4] The services of the petitioner shall be continued with effect from
01.08.2025.
[5] Compliance shall be reported to this Court by the returnable date.
[6] Learned AGP waives on behalf of respondent no.1 - State. Learned
Advocate Mr. Shukla waives service on behalf of the respondent no.2-
University"
[5] As could be seen from the above, by virtue of this interim
order, the preliminary objection raised by the appellant
University that the writ petition was not maintainable and that
the respondent No.1 was required to approach the Gujarat
Educational Institution Services Tribunal was held to be
untenable. In other words, the learned Single Judge overruled
the preliminary objections and held that the writ petition was
maintainable.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1100/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/04/2026
undefined
[6] Having held that the writ petition was maintainable, the
learned Single Judge has proceeded to grant an interim order to
the effect that the University should retain the services of the
respondent No.1 in the post of Assistant Librarian till a suitable
candidate is appointed to the said post on a regular basis. It was
also held by the learned Single Judge that the services of the
respondent No.1 were to be continued with the effect from
01.08.2025.
[7] It is against this interim order, which fundamentally
directs the University to retain the services of the respondent in
the post of Assistant Librarian till a suitable candidate was
appointed on a regular basis, that the present appeal is filed. No
doubt, the University also seeks to challenge the order of the
learned Single Judge in so far as it relates to the maintainability
of the writ petition.
[8] A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, by an order dated
23.09.2025, had in fact disposed of this Letters Patent Appeal,
permitting the respondent No.1 to approach the aforementioned
Tribunal for obtaining appropriate orders. The Co-ordinate
Bench, in fact, continued the direction of the learned Single
Judge for a period of 15 days.
[9] While disposing of the appeal, it was also held by the Co-
ordinate Bench that in case the University had continued the
services of the respondent, the service period should not be
altered for a period of 15 days.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1100/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/04/2026
undefined
[10] It is to be mentioned here that the original interim order
granted by the learned Single Judge on 18.08.2025, directing
the services of the respondent to continue with effect from
01.08.2025 had not been stayed by the Division Bench.
Consequently, in law, the respondent is deemed to have
continued in service with effect from 01.08.2025.
[11] Pursuant to the order of the Co-ordinate Bench, the
respondent No.1 did approach the Tribunal, and the Tribunal
passed an order on 03.10.2025 to the effect that the interim
order granted by the Co-ordinate Bench, i.e., to continue the
services of the respondent for a period of 15 days was to be
extended till the next date of hearing. It is not in dispute that
thereafter the Tribunal has periodically extended the interim
order.
[12] After the Co-ordinate Bench had allowed the writ appeal,
an application came to be filed by the respondent stating that
the proceedings that he had initiated before the Tribunal were
without jurisdiction and, consequently, the order was required
to be recalled. The Co-ordinate Bench, which had allowed the
writ appeal, accepted this contention and recalled the order,
thereby restoring the writ appeal, which, as a consequence, is
being taken up for consideration today.
[13] It may also be pertinent to state here that in the
interregnum, the learned Single Judge, before whom the Special
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1100/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/04/2026
undefined
Civil Application is still pending, was pleased to grant an interim
order on 16.12.2025 to the effect that the interim relief granted
on 18.08.2025, which was extended by the Division Bench, i.e.,
the Co-ordinate Bench would continue to remain in operation till
the next date of hearing.
[14] Thereafter, the respondent No.1 made an civil application
requesting the learned Single Judge to issue a direction to the
University to take him back on duty and thereby comply with
the order. However, this application has been withdrawn in view
of the fact that a review application had been filed and was
pending consideration, and the said application would be
revived after the review was disposed of.
[15] The net effect of these proceedings is that the learned
Single Judge, in a petition in which the respondent sought
regularization, granted an interim order directing the services
of the respondent to be continued till a regular recruitment was
made. This interim order was extended by the Co-ordinate
Bench when this Letters Patent Appeal was disposed of, and the
learned Single Judge has, by its order dated 16.12.2025,
extended the interim order granted in favour of the respondent
on 18.08.2025. Technically speaking, by virtue of the order
dated 16.12.2025, this writ appeal would be rendered
infructuous.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1100/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/04/2026
undefined
[16] Be that as it may, since the University, according to us, is
taking an unfair stand in the manner in which it is litigating this
issue, it has become necessary for us to decide the case of the
university, at least in so far as the interim relief is concerned.
[17] It is not in dispute that the appellant did engage the
services of the respondent No.1 on a contractual basis, and this
service continued for more than five years. In such a situation,
when the respondents sought for regularization, the learned
Single Judge thought it fit to extend the interim order. It may be
pertinent to state here that the argument of the University that
the writ petition was not maintainable has been overruled. The
fact that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court recalled its order
permitting the respondent No.1 - original petitioner to approach
the Tribunal also indicates that the writ petition was, in fact,
maintainable. It is, therefore, clear that the order of the learned
Single Judge holding that the writ petition was maintainable
cannot be found fault with. As a necessary consequence of
holding that the writ petition was maintainable, the interim
order granted by the learned Single Judge, which has also been
subsequently continued, cannot be found fault with, given the
fact that the respondent has been in service since 2020.
[18] We, therefore, find that there is absolutely no reason to
entertain this writ appeal, and the writ appeal is, accordingly,
dismissed.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1100/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/04/2026
undefined
[19] It is hereby ordered that the appellant University shall pay
the respondent No.1 salary with effect from 01.08.2025 and
shall forthwith take the respondent No.1 back on duty,
continuing to pay salary as before. It is needless to state that
this interim order, as observed by the learned Single Judge,
shall operate only till regular recruitment is made to the post
held by the respondent.
[20] All pending applications stand consigned to records.
(N.S.SANJAY GOWDA, J.)
(J. L. ODEDRA, J.)
DHARMENDRA KUMAR
