Point of Law: Appointment of the petitioner and the re-designation are concerned, both the issues have been given a quietus by this Court. It is not that the State Government was not aware about the appointment so also the re-designation inasmuch as, the State was very much party to the proceedings before this Court in the Public Interest Litigation.

JUDGMENT :

1. By this petition, inter alia, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has raised an issue as to whether it is or it is not open to the respondent State Government to pass an order of recovery of alleged excess payment made to the petitioner when the Division Bench of this Court, after examining the issue, held that the mistake committed by the University in not extending the proper designation to the petitioner was rectified by the University as well as holding that the petitioner has been granted appropriate scale of pay. The petitioner is challenging the order dated 13.10.2011 passed by the Deputy Secretary, Education Department and consequential order dated 4.1.2012 passed by the respondent no.3 – Gujarat University, as being illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, unjust and violative of principles of natural justice.

2. The facts of the case, as culled out from the record, are as under:

2.1 The respondent no.3 – Gujarat University (hereinafter referred to as “the University”), issued an advertisement dated 31.3.1993, inviting applications for filling up of different posts in the University including the post of Personal Secretary to the Vice-Chancellor. The advertisement had also prescribed pay scales for the respective posts and for the post of Personal Secretary to the Vice-Chancellor, the pay scale prescribed was Rs.2000–3200. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the petitioner applied for the post of Personal Secretary to the Vice-Chancellor and after completing the whole procedure, the petitioner was selected for the said post. Accordingly, the selection of the petitioner was placed before the Executive Council of the University and the Executive Council in turn, in its meeting held on 8.1.1994 approved the selection of the petitioner to the post of Personal Secretary to the Vice- Chancellor. The petitioner thereafter came to be appointed to the said post vide order dated 11.1.1994 in the pay scale of Rs.2000–3200.

2.2 After joining the duty with the University, the petitioner came to know that the post of Private Secretary to the Vice- Chancellor, carries the pay scale of Rs.2200–4000, and the University, inadvertently, had prescribed the pay scale of Rs.2000–3200 in the advertisement. The petitioner, therefore, made a representation dated 2.3.1995 to the Vice-Chancellor seeking the pay scale of Rs.2200-4000; pointing out that, in past, predecessors in office were drawing the pay scale of Rs.2200–4000. It was also pointed out that the Executive Council of the University, vide resolution No.18 passed in the meeting held on 11/12.4.1970, had resolved to create one more post of Assistant Registrar in addition to existing three posts of Assistant Registrar and further resolved to allott it to the office Vice-Chancellor as Personal Secretary to the Vice- Chancellor. The post of Personal Assistant to Vice-Chancellor was decided to be cancelled. A reminder letter was also sent to the University.

2.3 The University having found some substance in the representation of the petitioner, constituted a three members Committee consisting of Professor Y.D.Vyas, Shri Narhari Amin and Shri B.J. Pandya to examine the issue and submit the report. The Committee, in turn, after examining the issue, submitted its report dated 8.12.2000, observing that the demand of the petitioner is reasonable and that he should be paid salary in the pay scale which was being paid to the predecessors of the petitioner. Since the University wanted an expert opinion, the issue was once again referred to a Committee consisting of four members which also examined the issue and submitted its report dated 12.9.2001 and agreed with the report of the earlier Committee, recommending that the petitioner should be paid salary in the pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500 instead of Rs. 6000-10500 with effect from 20.1.1994.

2.4 The University placed the report before the Executive Council of the University and the Executive Council in its meeting held o