[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Shaheda Nuruddinbhai Lonkhandwala vs State Of Gujarat on 22 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1131/2018 ORDER DATED: 22/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1131 of 2018
=============================================
SHAHEDA NURUDDINBHAI LONKHANDWALA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
=============================================
Appearance:
MR SANJU NAKHVA FOR MR ANVESH V VYAS(5654) for the
Petitioner(s) No. 1
ADVOCATE NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1
DS AFF.NOT FILED (N) for the Respondent(s) No. 3,4
MS MANISHA LAVKUMAR, ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL WITH
MR KRUTIK PARIKH, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 22/04/2026
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard Mr.Sanju Nakhva, learned advocate for
Mr.Anvesh Vyas, learned advocate for the petitioner and
Ms.Manisha Lavkumar, learned Additional Advocate General
assisted by Mr.Krutik Parikh, learned AGP for respondent
Nos.1 to 4.
2. The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs :
"(A) Be pleased to allow this application.
(B) Be pleased to issue a writ order or direction directing
the respondent to regularise the service of the petitioner
for the post of lecturer (Class-II).
(C) Be pleased to pass an order directing the respondents
to consider the recruitment procedure followed while
selecting the petitioner for the post of lecturer as a regular
selection procedure.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1131/2018 ORDER DATED: 22/04/2026
undefined
(D) PENDING ADMISSION AND HEARING OF THIS PETITION,
be pleased to stay any further selection procedure of fresh
recruitment for the same post by respondent department
issued as per the advertisement dated 16/10/2017 in the
interest of justice."
3. The petitioner was appointed as ad hoc Lecturer, Class-
II at Government Ayurveda College, Vadodara in the year
2001. It is not in dispute that as per the conditions of the
appointment, the petitioner's services can be terminated in
the case where a regularly selected candidate through a
direct selection process undertaken by the Gujarat Public
Service Commission (GPSC) is available. Since the process of
regular selection was undertaken by respondent No.1
wherein, the petitioner was unable to clear the test and as a
regularly selected candidate was available, the petitioner's
services came to be terminated.
4. At the outset, Ms. Manisha Lavkumar, learned Additional
Advocate General would rely upon the decision of the Division
Bench of this Court dated 03/11/2023 passed in the case of
Hardik Pradipbhai Joshi vs. State of Gujarat, being
Letters Patent Appeal No. 1313 of 2022 and allied
matters and submit that the issue germane to the matter is
squarely covered by the aforesaid decision, whereby the
prayers made in this petition cannot be granted in favour of
the petitioner.
5. This Court has gone through the aforesaid decision
wherein, in somewhat identical situations germane to this
matter, the Division Bench of this Court held thus:
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1131/2018 ORDER DATED: 22/04/2026
undefined
"5. Having noticed the issues as above and considered
the rival contentions canvassed, proceeding to examine
the controversy in its twin aspects, the prayer of the
petitioners to permit them to continue on the post of
Lecturers was never well-founded in law. The appellants-
petitioners were the Lecturers, appointed in the
Government Polytechnic Colleges on ad-hoc basis. The fact
is not in dispute that their appointment was to last until the
GPSC selectees become available. The candidates in
waiting, having been selected pursuant to regular selection
process, are required to be posted as Lecturers. The GPSC
selectees having been available, the petitioners could not
stake their claim against such candidates. They had no
right to post, having regard to very nature of appointment.
They were aware about the nature of their appointment
and the conditions governing their holding of post. The
petitioners have to pave the way. The right to continue on
the post ceased for the appellants-petitioners once the
GPSC selectees became available.
5.1 The law is settled in the above regard. In Dr. Chanchal
Goyal vs. State of Rajasthan [(2003) 3 SCC 485], the
Supreme Court inter alia held that the temporary or ad-hoc
persons appointed for a specified period or till the
availability of the candidate selected by the Public Service
Commission, had no right to the post. It was further held
that non-joining of the selected candidates to replace the
appellant would also not confer right to hold the post. The
Supreme Court upheld the termination of the appellant
before it, further holding that even the doctrine of
legitimate expectation would not apply in such
circumstances.
5.1.1 The Supreme Court in Dr. Chanchal Goyal (supra)
observed,
"Unless the initial recruitment is regularized through a
prescribed agency, there is no scope for a demand for
regularization. It is true that an ad-hoc appointee cannot
be replaced by another ad-hoc appointee; only a legally
selected candidate can replace the ad-hoc or temporary
appointee. In this case it was clearly stipulated in the
initial order of appointment that the appellant was
required to make room once a candidate selected by the
Service Commission is available." (para 8)
5.2 The above proposition of law applies to the facts of the
present case. In J & K Public Service Commission and Ors.
vs. Dr. Narinder Mohan and Ors. [(1994) 2 SCC 630], the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1131/2018 ORDER DATED: 22/04/2026
undefined
Supreme Court stated that it cannot be laid down that even
if ad-hoc appointee is continued for a longer period, it
would not justify the relaxation of Rules or to regularise
such appointment.
5.3 In State of Haryana v. Piara Singh [(1992) 4 SCC 118],
the Supreme Court observed that the normal rule is
recruitment through the prescribed agency like Public
Service Commission. However, due to administrative
exigencies, the ad-hoc or temporary appointment would be
made. It was stated that however, in such a situation, the
temporary employee must give way to the regularly
selected candidates. It was stated that the "appointment of
the regularly selected candidate cannot be withheld or
kept in abeyance for the sake of such an ad hoc or
temporary employee". The ad-hoc employee should be
replaced only by regularly selected employee, it was
stated."
6. Per contra, Mr.Nakhva, learned advocate for the
petitioner is unable to controvert the aforesaid facts. He
would not be in a position to distinguish facts from what is
held by the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid
decision. Nonetheless, Mr.Nakhva, learned advocate would
submit that there are still vacancies available on which the
petitioner can be accommodated and may be reinstated in
service.
7. In view of the aforesaid facts and the binding decision of
the Division Bench of this Court, I do not find any merit in the
claim of the petitioner. Accordingly, no relief can be granted
in favour of the petitioner as prayed for.
8. Before parting, it is observed that it is open for the
petitioner to make a suitable representation to the respondent
authority in regard to giving him a fresh appointment on an ad
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1131/2018 ORDER DATED: 22/04/2026
undefined
hoc basis. The same may be decided by the concerned
respondent authority in accordance with law.
9. It is made clear that no equity/right will be created in
favour of the petitioner in a case where his representation is
rejected.
10. In view of the foregoing reasons, the present petition
deserves to be dismissed, which is hereby dismissed. Notice is
discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated. There shall
be no order as to costs.
(MAULIK J. SHELAT, J)
GAURAV J THAKER
