Point of Law - There is no violation of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. As there is alternative efficacious remedy available to the petitioner to approach the Lobour Court for the grievances raised in this petition, the petition is required to be dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

BHARGAV D. KARIA, J.

1. Heard learned advocate Ms. Niyati K. Shah for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Kurven Desai for the respondent No. 1, learned advocate Mr. Mitul Shelat for learned advocate Mr. Rajendra Patel for the respondent No. 3 and learned advocate Mr. Samir Afzal Khan for the respondent No. 4.

1.1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Kurven Desai waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent No. 1, learned advocate Mr. Mitul Shelat waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent No. 3 and learned advocate Mr. Samir Afzal Khan waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent No. 4.

2. By this petition, under Articles 226 and 27 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

“(A) This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order and/or directions quashing and setting aside the impugned Government Resolution dated 28.02.2013 in a so far as it requires the post of Supervisor (Civil) in respondent no. 3-University to be filled in on the basis of Fixed Pay of Rs. 5,300/- per month for the period of five years, and the Office Order dated 13.05.2016 in so far as it makes the provision regarding termination of services of the petitioner forthwith, as soon as the procedure for recruitment on the post of Supervisor (Civil) on the basis of Government Resolution dated 28.02.2013 is completed and the order dated 03.02.2017 passed by the respondent no. 3-University terminating the service of the petitioner as Supervisor (Civil) with immediate effect.

(B) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to declare the impugned government resolution dated 28.02.2013 as bad in law, arbitrary and discriminatory and thus, Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India to the extent in so far as it requires the post of Supervisor (Civil) in respondent no. 3-university to be filled in on the basis of fixed pay of Rs. 5,300/- per month for a period of five years.

(BB) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to decleare the impugned Government Resolution dated 15.5.2012 as bad in law, arbitrary and discriminatory and thus, violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India to the extent of insofar as it sought to create the post of supervisor (civil) again in the Respondent No. 3 university.

(C) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondent-authorities to renew the petitioner’s contract of service on the same terms and conditions and pay as either to and further directing the respondent-authorities to regularise the services of the petitioner on the basis of government resolutions dated 23.01.1998 as the petitioner was appointed way back in 2001 and put up uninterrupted services of more than 15 years on a permanent and sanctioned post of Supervisor (Civil).

(D) During the admission, hearing and final disposal of the present Petition, this Hon’bie Court may be pleased to grant against operation, implementation and execution of the government resolution dated 28.02.2013 as well as the office orders dated 13.05.2016 and 03.02.2017 and the petitioner may be allowed to discharge his duty on his original post without any interruption.

(E) The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass any other order or relief as may be deemed fit to the Hon’ble Court.”

3. The brief facts of the case are as under:

3.1. The respondent no. 3 is a University established under the Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Open University Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred as “the Act”). The State Government had initially sanctioned 8 posts of teaching as well as non teaching staff, vide its resolution dated 23.05.1995 and thereafter, by subsequent resolution dated 23.01.1998, the State Government had further sanctioned 2