[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Nayak Vikasbhai Surajbhai vs State Of Gujarat on 16 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14734/2022 ORDER DATED: 16/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14734 of 2022
=============================================
NAYAK VIKASBHAI SURAJBHAI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
=============================================
Appearance:
MR NIKUL K SONI(5122) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS FORUM SHAH, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR. ALKESH N SHAH(3749) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 16/04/2026
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard Mr.Nikul Soni, learned advocate for the
petitioner, Ms.Forum Shah, learned AGP appearing for the
respondent-State and Mr.Alkesh Shah, learned advocate for
respondent No.3.
2. The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs :
"9(a) to admit this petition and to allow the same by
issuing Notice for Final Disposal on returnable date;
9(b) to quash and set aside the impugned order of
termination of the petitioner dated 06-07-2022 as per
Annexure-F, and to direct re-instatement of the petitioner
with all the consequential financial and other benefits,
including continuity of service, as if the impugned order
was never passed;
9(c) PENDING THE HEARING AND FINAL DISPOSAL OF THIS
PETITION, BE PLEASED to stay the further operation of the
impugned order of termination of the petitioner dated 06-
07-2022 as per Annexure-F and to allow the petitioner to
discharge duty and to draw salary as he was doing prior to
the said order;"
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14734/2022 ORDER DATED: 16/04/2026
undefined
3. At the outset, Ms. Shah, learned AGP, would submit that
the petitioner is not entitled for reinstatement in view of the
decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of
Hardik Pradipbhai Joshi and others vs. State of Gujarat
and others, being Letters Patent Appeal Nos.1313 of
2022 and allied matters.
4. Mr.Soni, learned advocate for the petitioner is unable to
controvert the aforesaid fact and would not be in a position to
distinguish the facts from what is held by the Division Bench
in the aforesaid decision. Nonetheless, Mr.Soni, learned
advocate would submit that prior to the termination of the
petitioner, the petitioner along with other persons have
preferred a writ petition, being Special Civil Application No.
13094 of 2020, seeking regularization of service and if this
Court may not entertain the relief as prayed for in this
petition, a suitable observation may be made, thereby it may
not come directly in the way of the petitioner in the aforesaid
pending writ petition.
5. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective
parties and as it is undisputed fact that the claim of the
petitioner seeking reinstatement in service cannot be granted
by this Court in view of the binding decision of the Division
Bench of this Court in the case of Hardik Pradipbhai Joshi
(supra), the relief prayed for in this petition is not
entertained. At the same time, it is hereby observed that while
deciding the claim of the petitioner along with others in
relation to their regularization in service in the aforesaid writ
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14734/2022 ORDER DATED: 16/04/2026
undefined
petition, being Special Civil Application No.13094 of 2020, the
present rejection of the prayer of the petitioner will not come
in his way, as the relief of regularization of service shall have
to be considered by the Court in accordance with law.
6. In view of the aforesaid facts, reasons and clarification,
the present petition is not entertained. Accordingly, it is
rejected. Rule is discharged.
(MAULIK J. SHELAT, J)
GAURAV J THAKER
