IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10185 of 2020 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT Sd/-

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

Approved for Reporting Yes No ✓

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

PRAJESH KUMARI W/O MANISH DEPANKAJ Versus PATRON, MAJOR GENERAL SHRI DINESH SHRIVASTAVA & ORS.

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

Appearance:

MR DEVARSHI C SHAH(5545) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR ANKIT SHAH(6371) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3 SERVED BY RPAD (N) for the Respondent(s) No. 4 ==================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT Date : 10/02/2026 ORAL JUDGMENT

1. RULE returnable forthwith. Mr. Ankit Shah, learned advocate waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of respondent No.1.

2. With the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for hearing.

3. Heard Mr. Devarshi C. Shah, learned advocate for the petitioner as also Mr. Ankit Shah, learned advocate for respondent No.1, at length.

4. The present Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner, under Articles 14, 16, 19, 21 & 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:-

“(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue the writ of mandamus or certiorari or any other appropriate writ to all the respondents, order or direction to quash and set aside the termination order dated 29.02.2020.

(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue the writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to respondents to stay any further action on the basis of the advertisement dated 05.03.2020 for the post of the interview and stay the interview to be conducted on

21.3.2020.

(C) During the pendency, hearing and final disposal of the petition, Your Lordships may kindly be pleased to prohibit respondents from issuing appointment orders on the post of Principal as per the advertisement dated 05.03.2020 and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in services.

(D) Your Lordships may be pleased to pass such other and further relief which may deem fit in the interest of justice.”

5. At the outset, Mr. Devarshi Shah, learned advocate for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed as Principal in respondent – School but without holding a departmental inquiry, terminated her from service by respondent. It is submitted that the impugned action of the respondent in terminating her service is in violation of principles of natural justice.

5.1 Mr. Shah, learned advocate would further submit that till the time of termination, petitioner was not even supplied with the copy of her appointment but the same is produced by the respondent along with its reply which would also indicate that it was prepared subsequent to the date of termination, inasmuch as, date of appointment order is shown as 31.12.2019, whereas show cause notice is dated 27.12.2019.

5.2 Mr. Shah, learned advocate, would further submit that as per the show cause notice dated 27.12.2019, serious allegations of misconduct were levelled against the petitioner. It is submitted that, even though the petitioner was appointed on a contractual basis, as per the settled position of law, the respondent was supposed to hold a departmental inquiry before effecting her termination.

5.3 To buttress his arguments, he has relied upon the following decisions:-

I. Swati Priyadarshini Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2024 AIR SC 4339;

II. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & others vs. Brijesh Kumar & another reported in AIR

2024 SC 4424

5.4 Making the above submissions, Mr. Shah, learned advocate for the petitioner would request this Court to allow the present writ petition.

6. Per contra, Mr. Ankit Shah, learned advocate for respondent No.1 has vehemently opposed this petition, contending inter alia that petitioner was the contractual employee and her period of contr