BIREN VAISHNAV
Hiteshkumar Ramanbhai Patel – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners are ad hoc staff in government engineering colleges. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. government issued advertisement for posts yet appointments delayed. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. concern over status quo orders affecting regular appointments. (Para 11) |
| 4. ad hoc staff challenges validity of government resolutions. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. discussion on recruitment process and implications of appointments. (Para 21 , 22) |
| 6. reduction in sanctioned teaching posts due to declining enrollments. (Para 44 , 45) |
| 7. conclusion directing issuance of appointment orders for selected lecturers. (Para 54) |
JUDGMENT :
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Utkarsh Sharma as well as respective learned advocates waive service of notice of Rule for the respective respondents in all these petitions.
2. With the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, all these petitions alongwith Civil Applications were taken up for final hearing.
3. All these petitions except two i.e. SCA Nos.2271 of 2021 and 2670 of 2021 have been filed by Lecturers and / or
A. P. Public Service Commission v. P. Chandra Moulessware Reddy
Acharya Madhavi Bhavin v. State of Gujarat
J & K Public Service Commission and others v. Dr. Narinder Mohan
Jacob M Puthuparambil v. Kerala Water Authority
K. D. Vohra v. Kamleshbhai Gobarbhai Patel
K.D. Vohra v. Kamleshbhai Gordhanbhai Patel
N.T. Devin Katti and others v. Karnataka Public Service Commission
Parshavanath Charitable Trust v. AICTE
Pradeep Navinbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat
Pravinsinh Indrasinh Mahida v. State of Gujarat
Rani Laxmibai Kshetriya, Gramin Bank v. Chand Behari Kapoor
Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi
State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha
State of T.N. v. Adhiyaman Educational and Research Institute and others
Ad-hoc appointments do not confer a right to continue in service once regularly selected candidates become available, reinforcing employment law principles regarding temporary roles.
The court upheld the need for a mop-up round of counselling for increased intake capacity in engineering courses, emphasizing the validity of Section 20 of the Telangana Education Act.
Penalties for attendance discrepancies must be justified and backed by clear regulations; arbitrary reductions in student intake are unreasonable if lacking sufficient rationale.
The court established that institutions must seek prior approval for admissions beyond the prescribed quota, but students may have legitimate expectations based on past practices.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.