IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9398 of 2025 ========================================================

AMITKUMAR LALITBHAI GHORICHA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

========================================================

Appearance:

MR KARAN K PAUL(11611) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MS NIRALI SARDA ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MR DG SHUKLA(1998) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 ========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL Date : 18/08/2025

ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Karan K. Paul on behalf of the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Nirali Sarda on behalf of respondent- State and learned Advocate Mr. D.G. Shukla on behalf of respondent no.2- University.

2. By way of this petition the petitioner had sought for regularization more particularly in context of a decision of the respondents to advertise the post in which the petitioner was working, to be filled in by way of contractual employees, more particularly on the ground that the petitioner’s appointment itself was on contractual/temporary basis.

3. It requires to be mentioned that the petition has a slightly checkered history inasmuch as this Court has heard the petition on 28.07.2025 and whereas, this Court had passed an order in the open Court inter alia directing that the petitioner’s services shall not be replaced by another contractual/ temporary employee. On the said date since learned Advocate for the petitioner has sought for permission to move a draft amendment and whereas, the matter had been listed on 31.07.2025, on which date the learned Advocate for the petitioner had moved a draft amendment at which stage, learned Advocate Mr. Shukla for the respondent – University had inter alia raised a contention as regards the petition not being maintainable since the petitioner had an alternative remedy of approaching the Gujarat Educational Institutions Tribunal. This Court being of the prima facie opinion that since the contract of the petitioner had been extended till 31.07.2025, the petitioner services could be extended for a limited time period, and whereas, meanwhile the petitioner could approach the learned Tribunal with an appropriate application including an application for interim relief. Unfortunately, on that date i.e. on 31.07.2025, the said order could not be passed on account of paucity of time and whereas it also appears that meanwhile the matter thereafter could not be taken up till 14.08.2025 and in the meanwhile the respondents, had not permitted the petitioner to continue any further.

4. It would appear to this Court that the order to relegate the petitioner to the Tribunal was on account of a preliminary objection raised by learned Advocate on behalf of respondent no. 2 and whereas it also appears that later on, the order for continuing services of the petitioner, could not be passed by this Court on account of paucity of time. Since whatever had transpired had happen in open Court called upon learned Advocate Mr. Shukla to take instructions and whereas it appears that the university authorities, are adamant not to permit the petitioner to resume services. To this Court it would appear that when the petitioner was already before this Court when his services were continuing and since this Court had indicated that an appropriate order permitting the petitioner to continue, it was not open for the respondent – university to take advantage of the fact that this Court could not pass orders, on account of paucity of time. As it is, when this Court had made a suggestion that the university should consider taking the petitioner back in service, the authority should have understood that suggestions of this Court, as is the norm are required to be complied with.

5. This Court on the basis of the stand taken by the University, is constrained to come to a prima facie opinion that the respondents i.e the respondents Universi