Lpa13132022 GJHC240669442022 12 03112023

C/LPA/1313/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1313 of 2022
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16396 of 2019

With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1313 of 2022
With
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18485 of 2019
With
In
With
In
With
In
With
In
With
In
With
In
With
In
With
In
Page 1 of 31
Downloaded on : Tue Nov 07 13:04:33 IST 2023


With
In
With
In
With
In
With
In
With
In
With
In
With
In
With
In
With
In
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR DIRECTION) NO. 1 of 2023
In
Page 2 of 31

With
In
With
In
With
In
With
In
With
In
With
In
With
In
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR INTERIM RELIEF) NO. 1 of 2023
In
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL

and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
=============================================================
Page 3 of 31

1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be

allowed to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the

fair copy of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial

question of law as to the interpretation
of the Constitution of India or any order
made thereunder ?
==========================================================
HARDIK PRADIPBHAI JOSHI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance (LPA Nos. 1313/2022, 1314/2022, 1315/2022,
1318/2022, 1319/2022, 1316/2022, 1321/2022, 1320/2022,
1317/2022, 1050/2023):
MR. EKRAMA H QURESHI(7000) for the Appellant(s)
MS. MANISHA L. SHAH, GP WITH SIDDHARTH RAMI, AGP WITH
JEENAL ACHARYA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
MR. RUTVIJ R PATEL FOR RESPONDENT NO.13, 8 (in LPA
No.1316/2022)
Appearance (LPA Nos. 1360/2022, 1359/2022):

MR. S.P.MAJMUDAR, ULLASH N GOHIL for the Appellant(s)No.1
MS. MANISHA L. SHAH , GP WITH SIDDHARTH RAMI, AGP WITH
MR. ALKESH SHAH FOR RESPONDENT NO.3 (IN LPA No.
1360/2022)
Appearance (LPA Nos.: 1358/2022, 112/2023):
MR. ULLASH N GOHIL for the Appellant(s)
MS. MANISHA L. SHAH, GP WITH SIDDHARTH RAMI, AGP WITH
MR. ALKESH SHAH FOR RESPONDENT NO.3 (IN LPA No.
1358/2022)
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA

AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
Page 4 of 31

Date : 03/11/2023
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA)
These Letters Patent Appeals, fourteen in

numbers, arise from common judgment and order dated
07.10.2022 of learned Single Judge dismissing the
Special Civil Applications filed by the appellants-
original petitioners.
1.1 Since the facts have common thread and the

issues involved are identical, all the appeals were
heard together to be disposed of simultaneously by
this judgment.
2. Heard learned advocates Mr. Ekrama Kureshi,

Mr. S.P. Majmudar and Mr. Ullash Gohil for the
appellants appearing in the respective appeals,
whereas learned Government Pleader Ms. Manisha L.
Shah assisted by learned Assistant Government
Pleader Mr. Siddharth Rami with learned Assistant
Government Pleader Ms. Jeenal Acharya in all the
appeals on behalf of the State and its authorities.
2.1 Letters Patent Appeal No. 1313 of 2012 was

treated as main along with Letters Patent Appeals
No. 1314 of 2022 to 1321 of 2022. Letters Patent
Appeal No. 1360 of 2022 and rest of the Appeals was
a different batch, but cognate involving the same
Page 5 of 31

controversy.
2.2 Referring to prayer made in Special Civil

Application No. 16396 of 2019, corresponding to
Letters Patent Appeal No. 1313 of 2012 and all
other petitions containing similar prayers, it was
prayed to direct the respondents not to terminate
the services of the petitioners as ad-hoc Lecturers
(Class II), Mechanical or Electrical, as the case
may be without considering the petitioners for
continuation on the existing post in the branch
concerned at the Government Polytechnic Colleges
where they are posted.
2.3 The other prayer was to direct the respondents

to give the chance to the petitioners for competing
in the Limited Competitive Examination for the
purpose of regular appointment to the post of
Lecturer (Class II).
2.4 In rest of the Letters Patent Appeals, led by

Letters Patent Appeal No. 1360 of 2022 with Letters
Patent Appeals No. 1358 of 2022, 1359 of 2022, 112
of 2023 and 1050 of 2023, the prayers were made to
set aside Resolution dated 07.02.2020 and
29.02.2020 as also subsequent Resolution dated
27.07.2020 passed by the Education Department of
the State Government. The direction was prayed for
against the respondent no.1-Education Department to
Page 6 of 31

calculate the sanctioned post of Professors (Class

I), Associate Professors (Class-II) or Assistant
Professors (Class-II) in the Government Engineering
Colleges, considering the student-teacher ratio to
1:15 and considering the EWS, TFW and Diploma to
Degree D to D students in the Government
Engineering Colleges.
2.5 It was also the prayer to direct the

respondent no.3 All India Council of Technical
Education to include supernumerary students for
admission in calculation of student:teacher ratio
along with the approved intake at all years of
under graduate posts in Engineering institutions.
The petitioners wanted to fix the student:teacher
ration uniformly of 1:15 for under graduate
programme in all Engineering Institutions.
2.6 In Letters Patent Appeal No. 1313 of 2022 and

other connected appeals, the principal prayer
initially was against the termination of the
services, by moving an amendment, the petitioners
inserted the prayer to set aside the Resolution
dated 07.02.2020 and 27.07.2020 of the Education
Department insofar as they related to the
Mechanical branch.
2.7 In other words, all the petitions contained

similar prayers in two limbs, one against
Page 7 of 31

termination of services as ad-hoc lecturers and

other to set aside the aforementioned resolutions.
For the said Resolutions, the petitioners
apprehended that since the Resolutions provided for
reduction in the number of faculties, their
services would be automatically brought to an end.
The appellants-petitioners are the lecturers in
Mechanical branch and Electrical Engineering
branch.
3. Noticing the representative facts from Special

Civil Application No. 16393 of 2019, where the
petitioner was serving as ad-hoc Lecturer in the
Mechanical branch in V. Parekh Technical Institute,
a Government Polytechnic College, pleaded that he
was serving on the post as ad hoc Lecturer since
more than 10 years and that he was placed in the
pay-scale. It was stated that the Gujarat Public
Service Commission (GPSC) issued advertisement
undertaking the regular selection process. At the
end of the exercise, the GPSC came out with the
Resolution dated 13.06.2019 seeking to appoint 111
regularly selected candidates in the Mechanical
Engineering branch. Asserting the right to
continue on the post, the petitioner apprehended
that since the process by the GPSC was at the fag
end, his services would be terminated.
3.1 All the petitioners pleaded similarly. It was
Page 8 of 31

further stated that pursuant to the regular

selection process above, the Secretary, Education
Department-respondent no.1 issued order dated
03.07.2019 requiring the posts to be filled in by
regularly selected GPSC candidates. The said posts
where the ad-hoc Lecturers had been working, were
to filled in by regularly selected GPSC candidates,
thereby, the services of the petitioners would be
terminated. It was stated that services of one
Ravikumar Patel, petitioner no.8 in Special Civil
Application No. 16676 of 2020, referable to Letters
Patent Appeal No. 1360 of 2022, came to be
terminated by order dated 09.11.2020 and therefore,
the apprehension was well founded.
3.2 In respect of challenge to the aforesaid

Resolutions dated 07.02.2020, 29.02.2020 and
27.07.2020, of the Education Department, it was the
case that by Resolution dated 07.02.2020, the
intake capacity of students in the Degree and
Diploma courses in the colleges came to be reduced.
The number of faculties in each branch was revised
and reduced as a consequence of above resolution,
by Resolution dated 27.07.2020. It was contended
that in Mechanical branch also, the Diploma side
intake capacity was reduced to half the original
capacity in certain colleges and even zero in the
2nd shift. Similar was the effect of other
Page 9 of 31

Resolutions, it was contended.
3.3 It was submitted that in the Mechanical

branch, from the total sanctioned 571 seats, there
was a reduction of 121 seats and total remained was
450 sanctioned seats in the said branch. Similar
reduction was complained in the other branches in
view of the impugned Resolutions. It was then
contended that reduction in the faculties was vague
ground depending upon the intake of the past 3-4
years, whereas the All India Council for Technical
Education (AICTE) requirement provided to take into
account the figures of past 5 years consistently.
3.4 Making the grievance that the effect of the

said Resolution would be that the petitioner would
be loosing their job since the said Resolution
proposed the reduction in the student intake for
the academic year 2020-2021. It was the further
case that Resolution dated 27.07.2020 also
contemplated for decreasing the cadre strength in
the Government colleges on the ground that All
India Council for Technical Education had revised
the earlier student:teacher ratio of 1:15 to 1:20
from the academic year 2018-2019.
3.5 It was further that submitted that similarly

in the Electronic Engineering branch, the reduction
was proposed. The total sanctioned posts of the
Page 10 of 31

Associate Professor and Assistant Professor was

201, which was reduced by 31 to make available only
170 posts. In the Mechanical Engineering branch,
the reduction of the sanctioned posts were shown to
be 272 from 299, it was stated.
3.6 It was submitted by the petitioner (Special

Civil Application No. 16676 of 2020) inter alia
that All India Council for Technical Education
(AICTE) issued Notification in the year 2018
wherein the faculty student ratio was changed to
1:20 from 1:25 for the Diploma College students and
it was maintained to 1:20 for the Degree
Engineering Colleges. It was submitted that the
Government passed Resolution on 18.06.2018 to
restructure the teaching staff.
3.7 It was contended that though sufficient number

of students were available to be taken in the
Government Engineering Colleges, Resolution dated
07.02.2020 was passed all of a sudden, which was
vague resolution issued without following proper
process and that it had no backing of requisite
data. It was submitted that it suggested about the
seats for past 3-4 years only. Whereas at least, 5
years intake figures were required to be taken into
consideration. It was submitted that the State
Government could not reduce the intake of students
without prior permission of the AICTE.
Page 11 of 31

4. Contesting the prayers in the petition,

affidavit came to be filed by respondent no.2-
Commissioner of Technical Education submitting that
on similar set of facts and relief claimed herein,
Special Civil Application No. 9095 of 2020 was
filed, which is pending. The affidavit-in-reply
filed in the said petition was relied on
extensively by annexing the copy of the affidavit-
in-reply dated 19.08.2020 filed in the said
Special Civil Application No. 9095 of 2020.
4.1 It is the stand of the respondents, evincing

from the aforesaid affidavits inter alia that once
the GPSC selected candidates are available, the ad-
hoc petitioners could not claim any right to
continue on the post. As regards the prayer to
permit the ad-hoc appointee-the petitioners to
apply to participate in the limited competitive
examination, it was stated that the petitioners are
Diploma holders whereas the requirement, in order
to have participation in the Gujarat Public Service
Commission selection, is the Masters' Degree. It
was next stated that the Commissionerate of
Technical Education issued Circular dated
23.11.2000 specifically provided that the ad-hoc
Lecturers who are desirous to pursue Master of
Electronics or Master of Technology would do so
after resigning from the post of Lecturer as the
Page 12 of 31

Masters Degree is a full time course, and if the

ad-hocs are to pursue the course while working as
Lecturers, it would lead to academic suffering.
4.1.1 It was contended that the sanctioned posts

in the mechanical branch or any other branch could
not be allowed to be increased either mechanically
or arithmetically at the instance of the
petitioners. It was contended that AICTE has
issued no such direction. It was stated that
operational pattern of teaching was prescribed by
AICTE. The one was prevalent in the year 2018-19
underwent a change in the year 2019-20 for the
reason that AICTE has emphasised more on online
programmes rather than typical classroom teaching.
The change of teaching pattern whereby the stress
is laid on open subjects, technical subjects and
project work, seminar, etc., required change in the
approved intake.
4.1.2 It was stated that the State Government

through its Education Department issued Resolution
dated 07.02.2020 taking a decision to revised the
sanctioned intake of the students in the Government
Engineering Colleges and Government Polytechnic
colleges from the academic year 2020-21 in view of
the substantial reduction in admission of students
in the previous years, giving figures,
Page 13 of 31

"....in the academic year of 2018-19, the

total intake (first year) of the students was
3990 against which, 3552 students were
admitted leaving the vacant seats to the tune
of 438; similarly, in the academic year of
2019-20, the total intake (first year) of the
students was increased to 5062 against which,
only 3447 seats were filled in, leaving the
vacant seats to the tune of 1615.
4.1.3 It was further given out,
"....by virtue of the aforesaid Government

Resolution dated 07.02.2020, owing to the
number of the vacancy of 1615 in the
previous academic year of 2019-20, the
sanctioned student intake had to be
reduced to 3750 for the year 2020-21.1
respectfully say that even when there is
an implementation of 25% EWS quota, the
vacancy has increased, more particularly
in the year 2019-20 wherein the vacancy
has increased drastically to 1615 and
reduced only 1312 seats in the year 2020-
21 by virtue of GR dated 07.02.2020 and
29.02.2020."
4.1.4 It was contended that the State Government

issued Resolution dated 07.02.2020 taking into
consideration the scenario of last 5 years data
pertaining to vacant seats in the branch of
Mechanical Engineering. It was stated that merely
because the impugned Resolution specified the time
scale of 3-4 years in making reference, it was not
Page 14 of 31

that the State Government had not taken into

account the data of 5 years and the details about
the reduction of student intake. Clause 2.22.1 (d)
from the Approval Process of Handbook of AICTE
(2020-21) was relied on and it was contended that
AICTE had already approved the reduced intake in
the year 2020-21. It was further contended that
from the year 2018-19, AICTE revised the
faculty:student ratio from 1:20 to 1:25. The ratio
was revised to 1:20 in the Degree Engineering
Colleges whereas in Diploma Colleges, it was 1:25.
4.1.5 About Resolution dated 27.07.2020, in the

affidavit-in-reply in Special Civil Application No.
9095 of 2022, paragraph 6 contain the following
averments,
"....the State Government, in ts Education

Department, recently came out with a
Government Resolution dated 27.07.2020,
wherein a major restructuring has taken place
in various 22 disciplines of Government
Polytechnic colleges including the branch of
Mechanical Engineering (Diploma), wherein, due
to the significant reduction in the student
intake, the sanctioned posts in the Mechanical
branch came to be reduced from 540 to 450."
4.1.6 In the reply, it was further stated,
"....before the restructuring, the sanctioned

posts used to be 540, out of which 422 were
already filled up by the regularly GPSC
Page 15 of 31

appointed lecturers and 84 were ed up by the

ad-hoc/contractuals, leaving the total vacancy
to the tune of 34. It is due to the
significant reduction in the admission of the
students in the polytechnic colleges, the
State Government had to issue a Government
Resolution dated 27.07.2020, whereby the
sanctioned posts were reduced to 450.
Pertinently, because of such reduction in the
sanctioned posts by 90, there is a surplus
staff consisting of 56 lecturers, against
which 84 are adhoc/contractuals are working."
4.1.7 It was stated,
"there are 111 GPSC recommended lecturers who

have already been selected and will have to be
adjusted in the sanctioned posts of 450, and
since there are no vacancies left to
accommodate all the 111 GPSC recommended
lecturers, the said entire list of 111 GPSC
recommended lecturers will not be operated,
and Instead only 28 (Sanctioned posts 450 422
posts already filled up by GPSC earlier) GPSC
recommended lecturers shall be given the
posting. In such eventuality, all 84
adhoc/contractual appointees shall have to
make way for the batch of 28 GPSC recommended
lecturers.
4.2 In the affidavit-in-reply filed in the present

proceedings, the above quoted paragraph 6 was
referred to, to further contend, extracting from
paragraph 5 of the affidavit in the present
proceedings,
Page 16 of 31

"..what is mentioned in para 6 of aforesaid

affidavit filed in SCA No 9095 of 2020, it is
respectfully submitted that there has been a
further modification in the staff position in
the Mechanical Engineering (Diploma). Out of
450 sanctioned posts, 423 have been filled by
the regularly selected GPSC candidates, 46
posts are filled by the ad hoc and contractual
lecturers, as on today. Thus, against 450
sanctioned posts, total 469 posts (423 posts
with GPSC candidates+ 46 posts) are occupied.
rendering 19 posts as surplus It is further
submitted that due to the interim relief
operating in the favour of the present
petitioners, 24 GPSC recommended candidates
are still awaiting their appointments.
Therefore, it is pertinent to note that apart
from the existing 423 regular lecturers,
another 24 candidates have been recommended by
the GPSC, who are awaiting their appointments.
Hence, against 450 sanctioned posts, 447 (re
423 + 24, referred to above) posts are to be
filled in by the GPSC recommended lecturers."
4.3 All India Council for Technical Education-

respondent no.3 herein filed its affidavit in the
proceedings of Special Civil Application No. 16676
of 2020, which applies in common. It is submited
therein that no AICTE approved institution would be
permitted to downsize the teaching faculty due to
reduction of student-faculty ration norms. It was
further contended that the main prayer of the
petitioners was that they wanted to be confirmed
against the posts to be filled in by the State
Government and that creation of the said posts was
within the domain of the State Government.
Page 17 of 31

4.4 The petitioners had put in more than 13 years

of service and could not have been thrown away from
service. It was submitted that the petitioners
possessed required qualification at the relevant
time for their appointment and there was not
relaxation granted. The appellants termed the
action and decision on part of the respondent
authorities to be arbitrary and unreasonable.
4.4.1 Similar contentions as advanced before

learned Single Judge were canvassed by learned
advocates for the appellants. It was submitted
that learned Single Judge committed error in mixing
the reliefs, which were of two different kinds and
nature. Learned Single Judge dealt with the issue
as if the appellants-petitioners had been seeking
regularisation, it was submitted. The contention
regarding Resolutions dated 07.02.2020 and
27.07.2020 have not been properly appreciated by
learned Single Judge, according to the appellants
4.4.2 On behalf of appellants-petitioners, it

was submitted that Resolutions lacked legal
sanction of the AICTE. It was submitted that
reduction or increase in the intake and the seats
could be done only with the prior approval of
AICTE. It was submitted that the circumstance
created by the respondents leading to termination
of services of the petitioners where arbitrary.
Page 18 of 31

4.4.3 It was further submitted that the

Government had reduced the intake to zero on the
basis of the 2019-20 admission against the policy
of respondent no.3 AICTE. It was sought to be
submitted that learned Single Judge failed to rely
on relevant data. It was submitted that there was
substantial number of admissions during last five
years and therefore, reduction in the intake of
students was not necessary. It was submitted that
more than 90% of the seats of various colleges were
filled in, still however, seats were reduced to the
extent of 50% in the respective colleges. It was
submitted that restructuring was done only before
two years by Resolution dated 18.06.2018 and
further reduction in the sanctioned faculty or
approved intake was not necessary.
4.5 Learned Single Judge considered various

decisions to observe in judgment and order dated
that ad-hoc appointees have limited right to
continue in service till the regularly selected
candidates are available. When the regular
selection had already been undertaken by the GPSC
and the selected candidates were available, the
continuance of appointments of the petitioners was
not justified. It was observed that appointees of
such class cannot invoke the doctrine of legitimate
expectation. Principle was also stated that merely
Page 19 of 31

because such petitioners had continued to hold the

post, it will not give them the licence to
continue.
4.5.1 Learned Single Judge noticed the preamble

of Resolution dated 07.02.2020 in which the intake
details of the past years was noticed and
consequently, the intake capacity was decreased in
light of the student faculty ratio. It was
observed that it was done in light of the role of
AICTE and its approval procedures.
4.5.2 About Education Department Resolution

dated 27.07.2020, it was observed thus by learned
Single Judge,
"38. Even when the Government Resolution dated

27.07.2020 is read it falls back on the
Government Resolution dated 07.02.2020.
Apparently, therefore, the process undertaken
for downsizing the intake cannot be faulted on
the grounds canvassed at the hands of the ad-
hoc appointees as well as at the hands of the
petitioners who find themselves excluded from
the list of original recommendees as a result
of the GPSC’s revised result made in
consultation with the Government in light of
these Government Resolutions. The reading of
the Government Resolution dated 27.07.2020
indicates that in the year 2017-18, the
student faculty ratio was 1:20 which was
revised to 1:25 in 2018-19. Taking into
consideration the continued reduction of
students opting for courses in the Government
Polytechnics and colleges it was found that
Page 20 of 31

the student intake had reduced to 6600 seats

and therefore there was a parallel need to
reduce the strength of the teaching faculty.
Based on the report of the Committee in May,
2020 a requisition was made to the Department
and therefore such reduction was under the
consideration of the Government. It was
accordingly decided to reduce the set-up in
the Government Polytechnics. The Resolution
has a table affixed thereto. A resolution
dated 27.07.2020 on similar lines was issued
for the Government Engineering Colleges."
4.5.3 Affidavit-in-reply filed by the State in

Special Civil Application No. 10427 of 2021 was
extensively referred to and relied by learned
Single Judge for its details, which reflected the
relevant facts and criteria applied in the decision
making process leading to the issuance of the
aforementioned three resolutions.
4.6 Responding to the case and contentions of the

appellants in the present appeals, learned
Government Pleader asserted that the appellants-
petitioners who were ad-hoc professors did not have
any right to continue on the posts once the GPSC
selected candidates are available and in queue to
hold the post. It was stated that as many as 17
and more GPSC examinations were conducted in which,
approximately 500 adhoc candidates were absorbed.
These, the present appellants, failed. It was
submitted that the appellants are the persons who
Page 21 of 31

had opportunity to clear the regular selection

during their tenure, but could not clear. When
they have either failed to clear the GPSC
examination or did not appear in such examination,
they have to make room for regularly selected GPSC
candidates waiting for their appointment as regular
candidates.
4.6.1 Learned Government Pleader highlighted the

figures to submit that more than 1500 vacancies
were generated during the year 2010 to 2022 and the
process was advertised but non of the petitioners
could pass a single examination and could not find
a single seat for them out of large number of
vacancies. It was submitted that now they cannot
claim any right vis-a-vis the GPSC candidates.
4.6.2 Regarding the challenge to the Resolutions

whereby the faculty strength was sought to be
reduced in the Government polytechnic colleges, it
was submitted that Resolution dated 07.02.2020 was
passed reducing the student intake in light of the
date of yesteryear and in view of less number of
students noticed, the faculties were reduced
decreasing the number of sanctioned posts in the
various branches. It was submitted that the
guidelines of the National Board of Accreditation,
which is an autonomous body to assess the quality
and standard of education, have to be followed and
Page 22 of 31

also required to be followed were the AICTE

guidelines. The Resolutions were therefore
required to be passed to match the student-teacher
ratio.
4.6.3 It was submitted that the State government

had formed an expert committee, which calculated
the sanctioned posts based on the revised teacher-
student ratio to 1:25 and based on the work load,
whichever was higher that was taken into
consideration. The details were given in the
tabular form,
Branch Students Total As per Sanctioned

intake students teacher/s intake
for 3 tudent
years ratio
(1:25)
1 2 3 4 +(3/25) 5
Mechanical 3000 9000 360 450
Electrical 2760 8280 331 312
4.6.4 It was submitted therefore that the

requirement of Mechanical Engineering faculty was
360 but the State Government has approved
sanctioned posts much higher in number, that is,
450. In the Electrical branch, as per the student-
teacher ratio, 331 posts are required, however, 312
posts were sanctioned. Explaining the figure of
312, it was submitted that it is correct
Page 23 of 31

assessment, inasmuch the branch-wise calculation of

the teacher-student ratio is not possible for the
reason that some of the subjects and teachers like
Maths, English, Chemistry, Physics, Engineering
Drawing, Engineering Mechanics, etc., are common
subjects taught.
4.6.5 It was importantly submitted that AICTE

affiliated diploma and degree colleges of
Government of Gujarat took the approval for the
year 2020-2021 with revised intake considering the
Government Resolution dated 27.07.2020 and that the
AICTE has readily granted extension of approval and
approved the courses. Learned Government Pleader
also referred to the affidavit filed by AICTE,
which stated that the downsizing of the posts was
the domain of the State Government.
4.6.6 It was submitted by learned Government

Pleader that pursuant to this Court's order dated
07.10.2022, the department issued appointment
letters dated 10.10.2022 to the GPSC selected
candidates in mechanical and electrical branch. It
was stated that in the mechanical branch,
appointment orders were issued to 18 out of 24
candidates and in the electrical branch, such
appointment orders were issued to 35 candidates out
of 36 candidates.
Page 24 of 31

4.6.7 It was further stated that 13 candidates from

mechanical branch and 15 candidates from electrical
branch have joined the duty and that remaining
candidates are likely to join the duty within 30
days, which is the time limit permitted as per the
conditions for appointment, while in exceptional
cases, such time limit may be further extended. It
was further submitted that in the event the GPSC
selected candidates fail to join, seats would be
filled in from the waiting list of the GPSC
selectees only.
5. Having noticed the issues as above and

considered the rival contentions canvassed,
proceeding to examine the controversy in its twin
aspects, the prayer of the petitioners to permit
them to continue on the post of Lecturers was never
well-founded in law. The appellants-petitioners
were the Lecturers, appointed in the Government
Polytechnic Colleges on ad-hoc basis. The fact is
not in dispute that their appointment was to last
until the GPSC selectees become available. The
candidates in waiting, having been selected
pursuant to regular selection process, are required
to be posted as Lecturers. The GPSC selectees
having been available, the petitioners could not
stake their claim against such candidates. They
had no right to post, having regard to very nature
Page 25 of 31

of appointment. They were aware about the nature of

their appointment and the conditions governing
their holding of post. The petitioners have to pave
the way. The right to continue on the post ceased
for the appellants-petitioners once the GPSC
selectees became available.
5.1 The law is settled in the above regard. In Dr.

Chanchal Goyal vs. State of Rajasthan[(2003) 3 SCC
485], the Supreme Court inter alia held that the
temporary or ad-hoc persons appointed for a
specified period or till the availability of the
candidate selected by the Public Service
Commission, had no right to the post. It was
further held that non-joining of the selected
candidates, to replace the appellant would also not
confer right to hold the post. The Supreme Court
upheld the termination of the appellant before it
further holding that even the doctrine of
legitimate expectation would not apply in such
circumstances.
5.1.1 The Supreme Court in Dr. Chanchal Goyal

(supra) observed,
"Unless the initial recruitment is regularized

through a prescribed agency, there is no scope
for a demand for regularization. It is true
that an ad-hoc appointee cannot be replaced by
another ad-hoc appointee; only a legally
selected candidate can replace the ad-hoc or
Page 26 of 31

temporary appointee. In this case it was

clearly stipulated in the initial order of
appointment that the appellant was required to
make room once a candidate selected by the
Service Commission is available."
(para 8)
5.2 The above proposition of law applies to the

facts of the present case. In J & K Public Service
Commission and Ors. vs. Dr. Narinder Mohan and Ors.
[(1994) 2 SCC 630], the Supreme Court stated that
it cannot be laid down that even if ad-hoc
appointee is continued for a longer period, it
would not justify the relaxation of Rules or to
regularise such appointment.
5.3 In State of Haryana v. Piara Singh[(1992) 4

SCC 118], the Supreme Court observed that the
normal rule is recruitment through the prescribed
agency like Public Service Commission. However,
due to administrative exigencies, the ad-hoc or
temporary appointment would be made. It was stated
that however, in such a situation, the temporary
employee must give way to the regularly selected
candidates. It was stated that the "appointment of
the regularly selected candidate cannot be withheld
or kept in abeyance for the sake of such an ad hoc
or temporary employee". The ad-hoc employee should
be replaced only by regularly selected employee, it
was stated.
Page 27 of 31

5.4 As regards the second facet of the challenge,

though independent yet interconnected, relating to
the Resolutions reducing the student-intake and the
resultant decrease in the number of sanctioned
faculties, it is to be accepted that the intake
approval and the number of teaching faculties bear
a correlation. The decision to reduce the student
intake was based on expert committee advice and
after undertaking the study of admission in the
past years. As the number of admissions declined
in the past academic years, the Resolution dated
07.02.2020 reducing the student intake was passed
and consequently, the Resolution dated 27.07.2020
providing for reduction in the sanctioned post of
Lecturers in the various branches of Diploma
Engineering.
5.5 As given out, in the academic year 2018-19,

438 seats remained vacant. Only 355 students were
admitted against the total intake of 3990. In the
same way, in the academic year 2019-20, against
total approved intake of 5062, only 3447 seats
could be filled-up. Large number of 1615 seats
remained vacant. These were the cogent facts,
aspects and circumstances, which guided the State
Government to take the decision to reduce the
sanctioned intake and the number of faculties. As
also an another aspect, which became relevant,
Page 28 of 31

namely, that the pattern of teaching underwent

change in the academic year 2019-20 compared to
earlier academic years as emphasis was led on on-
line programs, seminars, etc., rather than
traditional class room studies.
5.6 The passing of Resolutions dated 07.02.2020,

29.02.2020 and 27.07.2020 was guided by such
rational considerations. The said Resolutions
passed by the Education Department were essentially
policy decisions. The were backed by proper
factual data and relevant inputs based on expert
study, applied to reduce the student intake and
downsize the number of sanctioned faculties. Not
only that the decisions were in the policy realm,
they were eminently reasonable and purpose-
oriented.
6. In view of the above legal and factual

position, both planks of challenge raised by the
appellants-petitioners have no merits.
7. It may be noted at this stage that in light of

the order dated 17.10.2022 passed by the Court, the
respondent authorities issued orders of appointment
dated 10.10.2022 to the GPSC selected candidates in
Mechanical and Electrical branch. These selected
candidates have joined their duties.
Page 29 of 31

7.1 Apart all the aspects of the controversy

discussed and highlighted above, as per the details
submitted by the Government Pleader, minimal number
of ad-hoc lecturers are affected.
7.2 The position is indicated in the following

table,
Diploma Staff Position of Lecturer Class-II
POST DETAILS
Approved GPSC Details of Vacant Posts Adhoc Number of
Sr. Branch
POST* selected selected Lecturer Adhoc
No.
candidates GPSC wait s appointees
appointed list working required
candidates in Govt. to be
Polytech terminated
nic
colleges
1 12
Mechanical 450 438 7 (8 Adhoc + 4 8 3
Engg. vacant)
2 Electrical 312 303 5 09
Engg. (3 Adhoc + 6 3 0
vacant)
7.3 Thus, it can be seen that in order to

accommodate seven wait-list candidates in
mechanical branch, three ad-hoc lecturers will have
to vacate their posts and their services would
become liable to be terminated. In electrical
branch, five wait-list candidates are required to
be accommodated. For that, there will be no need
to terminate any of the ad-hoc lecturers presently
working in the different Government polytechnic
colleges.
8. While giving the above factual details, it
Page 30 of 31

was stated on behalf of the Government authorities

that seats on which the GPSC selected candidates
have not joined, will be filled in by the GPSC
waiting list.
9. For the foregoing reasons and discussion, in

addition to the reasons supplied by learned Single
Judge, the challenge in the writ petitions lacked
merit.
10. The petitions were rightly dismissed by

learned Single Judge. The impugned judgment and
order of learned Single Judge does not book any
error.
11. All the fourteen Letters Patent Appeals are

liable to be dismissed. They are accordingly
dismissed.
Civil Applications will not survive in view of

the disposal of the Letters Patent Appeals.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ )
(N.V.ANJARIA, J)
BIJOY B. PILLAI
Page 31 of 31

Lpa13132022 GJHC240669442022 12 03112023

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lpa13132022 GJHC240669442022 12 03112023

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lpa13132022 GJHC240669442022 12 03112023

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

C/LPA/1313/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1313 of 2022

In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16396 of 2019

Downloaded on : Tue Nov 07 13:04:33 IST 2023

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16165 of 2019

Downloaded on : Tue Nov 07 13:04:33 IST 2023

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL

Downloaded on : Tue Nov 07 13:04:33 IST 2023

1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be

2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the

4 Whether this case involves a substantial

Appearance (LPA Nos. 1360/2022, 1359/2022):

CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA

Downloaded on : Tue Nov 07 13:04:33 IST 2023

These Letters Patent Appeals, fourteen in

1.1 Since the facts have common thread and the

2. Heard learned advocates Mr. Ekrama Kureshi,

2.1 Letters Patent Appeal No. 1313 of 2012 was

Downloaded on : Tue Nov 07 13:04:33 IST 2023

2.2 Referring to prayer made in Special Civil

2.3 The other prayer was to direct the respondents

2.4 In rest of the Letters Patent Appeals, led by

Downloaded on : Tue Nov 07 13:04:33 IST 2023

calculate the sanctioned post of Professors (Class

2.5 It was also the prayer to direct the

2.6 In Letters Patent Appeal No. 1313 of 2022 and

2.7 In other words, all the petitions contained

Downloaded on : Tue Nov 07 13:04:33 IST 2023

termination of services as ad-hoc lecturers and

3. Noticing the representative facts from Special

3.1 All the petitioners pleaded similarly. It was

Downloaded on : Tue Nov 07 13:04:33 IST 2023

further stated that pursuant to the regular

3.2 In respect of challenge to the aforesaid

Downloaded on : Tue Nov 07 13:04:33 IST 2023

Resolutions, it was contended.

3.3 It was submitted that in the Mechanical

3.4 Making the grievance that the effect of the

3.5 It was further that submitted that similarly

Downloaded on : Tue Nov 07 13:04:33 IST 2023

Associate Professor and Assistant Professor was

3.6 It was submitted by the petitioner (Special

3.7 It was contended that though sufficient number

Downloaded on : Tue Nov 07 13:04:33 IST 2023

4. Contesting the prayers in the petition,

4.1 It is the stand of the respondents, evincing

Downloaded on : Tue Nov 07 13:04:33 IST 2023

Masters Degree is a full time course, and if the

4.1.1 It was contended that the sanctioned posts

4.1.2 It was stated that the State Government

Downloaded on : Tue Nov 07 13:04:33 IST 2023

"....in the academic year of 2018-19, the

4.1.3 It was further given out,

"....by virtue of the aforesaid Government

4.1.4 It was contended that the State Government

Downloaded on : Tue Nov 07 13:04:33 IST 2023