Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SANGEETA K. VISHEN, J.
Girish Jivrambhai Thakkar – Petitioner
Versus
Hemchandracharya North Gujarat University and Others – Respondents
Special Civil Application No. 15213 of 2017
Decided On : 24-03-2021.
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226 - Gujarat Educational Institutions Services Tribunal Act, 2006 - Section 11 – University Grants Commission Regulations, 2010 - Termination from service – Quash of Advertisement - Prayed for quashing and setting aside \ order of termination passed by respondent No. 1 (University”) on ground that same is illegal and bad in law, it having been passed without following due process of law namely, the University Statute so also, in contravention of Regulations, 2010 - Case of petitioner that he was working under respondents as Vijdi Gar Helper since for more than 14 years and his services have been terminated without following due procedure of continued and as and when respondent no. 2 started scheme, he be given priority without back wages. According to him, he has completed 240 days of service law. It is contended by petitioner that he has filed the Reference (L.C.J.) before the Labour Court - Whether by virtue of order appointing the petitioner on probation, can any right, said to have been conferred upon petitioner.
Finding of the court: Petitioner having worked as ad hoc Assistant Professor, cannot be said to have possessing five years of administrative experience as Assistant Registrar or in an equivalent post because, the post of Assistant Professor is not equivalent to the post of Assistant Registrar. Therefore, both the arguments namely counting of ad hoc service as well as petitioner possessing the requisite qualifications for being appointed to the post of Controller of Examination, of the learned advocate for the petitioner are misplaced and devoid of any merits and thus are rejected - The Apex Court in the case of K.D. Sharma (supra), has held that if a party comes for equitable relief, it is incumbent upon him or her to disclose all the relevant facts even if the facts are against - Therefore, non-disclosure of material facts and giving a distorted version of the nature of his appointment, these two factors are fatal to the writ petition and disentitles the petitioner from seeking any equitable reliefs - Prayed for by petitioner, for setting aside the employment notices also does not deserve to be granted and is hereby rejected.
Result: Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
SANGEETA K. VISHEN, J.
1. With the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.
2. Issue Rule, Mr. Siddharth Dave, learned advocate waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent No. 1 and Mr. Rohan Shah, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
3. By this petition, inter-alia, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the advertisement dated 27.7.2017 qua the post of Controller of Examination. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing and setting aside the order of termination dated 4.7.2015 passed by the Hemchandracharya North Gujarat University i.e. respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as “the University”) on the ground that the same is illegal and bad in law, it having been passed without following due process of law namely, the University Statute so also, in contravention of the University Grants Commission Regulations dated 28.06.2010 (herein after referred to as the Regulations of 2010”).
4. The facts, discernible from the record, are as under:
4.2. The petitioner being aggrieved, had preferred Appeal No. 101 of 2015 before the Gujarat Educational Institutions Services Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) under the provisions of Section 11 of the Gujarat Educational Institutions Services Tribunal Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act of 2006”) seeking declaration that the action of the University in not accepting the appointment of the petitioner is illegal and against the provisions of the University Act and Regulations of 2010 and therefore, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.
4.3. During the pendency of Appeal No. 101 of 2015 before the Tribunal, the University had issued an advertisement dated 27.7.2017 wherein, various posts were advertised by it, including the post of Controller of Examination in General category, calling for the applications from the eligible candidates. The petitioner being aggrieved, has preferred the captioned writ petition with the aforementioned prayers.
5. Mr. Bhargav Hasurkar, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner was appointed as Controller of Examination by the duly constituted Committee by issuing an appointment order dated 25.7.2013, the service came to be abruptly terminated, without issuing any notice much less, without offering any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, which action of the University is in the breach of principles of natural justice. It is next submitted that the termination of the petitioner vide order dated 4.7.2015 is against the guidelines of University Grants Commission (hereinafter referred to as “the UGC”). While inviting the attention of this Court to the order dated 4.7.2015, it is submitted that the University sought guidance from the State Government as regards the pay protection to be extended to the petitioner and the State Government, in turn, vide its communication dated 22.12.2014, informed that the earlier ad hoc service of the petitioner cannot be considered for the purpose of direct recruitment. It is this letter dated 22.12.2014 which weighed with the University while passing
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
