Gujarat High Court
Mahavirsinh Narapatsinh Jadeja vs Saurashtra University on 1 August, 2025
Author: Nikhil S. Kariel
Bench: Nikhil S. Kariel
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14222/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14222 of 2024
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14223 of 2024
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14228 of 2024
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14234 of 2024
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
==========================================================
MAHAVIRSINH NARAPATSINH JADEJA
Versus
SAURASHTRA UNIVERSITY & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ANAND B GOGIA(5849) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR. GAURAV A. GOGIA(14128) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR ADITYA PATHAK, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR SHIVANG THACKER, ADVOCATE for MR AR THACKER(888) for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL
Date : 01/08/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned Advocate Ms. Kajal Kalwani for the petitioners, learned AGP Mr. Aditya Pathak for the respondent-State and learned Advocate Mr. Shivang A. Thacker for the respondent-University, in this group of petitions.
2. Since a common issue has arisen in all the writ petitions and since Page 1 of 22 Uploaded by BHUPENDRASINH SONAGRA(HC01082) on Sat Aug 02 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 22:17:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14222/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined impugned orders are also similar, the present petitions are taken up for hearing jointly.
3. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Advocates waive service of notice of rule on behalf of the respective respondents.
4. By way of the present petitions, the petitioners who are applicants before the learned Gujarat Educational Institution Services Tribunal, have challenged orders dated 19.09.2024 passed in (Miscellaneous) Applications preferred by them in the main applications.
5. The details of the main applications and the (Miscellaneous) Applications in the main applications in each of the petitions are as follows :
Special Civil Main (Miscellaneous) Impugned
Application Application Application Orders Dates
Nos. Nos. Nos. in the
Main
Applications
(Exhibit. Nos.)
14222 of 2024 65 of 2019(U) 126 and 127 19.09.2024
14223 of 2024 76 of 2021(U) 81 and 82 19.09.2024
14228 of 2024 77 of 2021(U) 70 and 71 19.09.2024
14234 of 2024 78 of 2021(U) 74 and 75 19.09.2024
Page 2 of 22
Uploaded by BHUPENDRASINH SONAGRA(HC01082) on Sat Aug 02 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 22:17:53 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14222/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
6. The (Miscellaneous) Applications preferred by the petitioners were for setting aside the order passed by the learned Tribunal and to direct the Tribunal to exhibit a document in the nature of a daily newspaper and for exhibiting a CD and transcript document.
7. While the issue involved in the present petitions are in a limited sphere, yet, since this Court is of the considered opinion that the (Miscellaneous) Applications before the learned Tribunal and the present petitions are thoroughly misconceived and have extended an already protracted litigation, therefore to ensure a quietus insofar as the present offshoot litigation is concerned and to further ensure that the main applications are decided expeditiously, within a time bound schedule, as directed by Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court and further directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, a brief narration of the above referred protracted litigation would be necessary.
7.1 It appears that the petitioners, who were working with the respondent-University on different posts, on a fixed salary, which had been intermittently revised, had originally approached this Court by preferring Special Civil Application No. 10020 of 2018 and allied writ petitions, more particularly seeking for grant of regularization and for the benefit of equal pay for equal work. It also appears that during the Page 3 of 22 Uploaded by BHUPENDRASINH SONAGRA(HC01082) on Sat Aug 02 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 22:17:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14222/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined pendency of the said writ petitions, the petitioners herein had been terminated from service by the respondent-University, which had led to filing of Civil Applications by the writ petitioners. A learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court (Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.V. Anjaria, as His Lordship then was) vide judgment dated 07.05.2019, had while declining to interfere in the writ petitions on the ground of availability of alternative statutory remedy under Section 11 of the Gujarat Educational Institutions Services Act, 2006, (for short "the Act") directed the petitioners to approach the learned Tribunal and had also directed the University to reinstate the petitioners, as an ad-interim measure, till the learned Tribunal would take up the main applications for the first time and whereas liberty was reserved in favour of the petitioners to seek for extension of the ad-interim relief and further to seek a substantive interim relief.
7.2 It appears that both, the petitioners as well as the respondent- University had challenged the order passed by the learned Co-ordinate Bench and whereas the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court vide separate orders in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1254 of 2019 preferred by the University and Letters Patent Appeal No. 1341 of 2019 and allied matters preferred by the petitioners, dated 24.06.2019 and 04.07.2019, Page 4 of 22 Uploaded by BHUPENDRASINH SONAGRA(HC01082) on Sat Aug 02 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 22:17:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14222/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined respectively, had declined to interfere in the Letters Patent Appeals, additionally imposing cost of Rs. 5000/- upon the University in the LPA preferred by them.
7.3 It also appears that since the petitioners were not reinstated, applications under the Contempt of Courts Act being Misc. Civil Application No. 534 of 2019 and allied matters had also been preferred and whereas the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court had declined to interfere in the said applications.
7.4 It would appear that the learned Tribunal in applications preferred by the petitioners had passed a common order dated 27.09.2019 declining to interfere in the applications on the ground that procedural requirement of having approached the appropriate authority as required under Sections 11 and 11(a) of the Act, having not been fulfilled, reserving liberty in favour of the petitioners to approach the Tribunal once again, after following the due procedure. Consequentially, vide order dated 30.09.2019 applications for interim relief preferred by the petitioners had also been disposed of.
7.5 It appears that the order of the learned Tribunal had been challenged by the petitioners by preferring Special Civil Application No. Page 5 of 22 Uploaded by BHUPENDRASINH SONAGRA(HC01082) on Sat Aug 02 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 22:17:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14222/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined 21449 of 2019 and a learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 29.06.2020, had declined to interfere in the petition. The petitioners had thereupon preferred Letters Patent Appeal No. 337 of 2020 and whereas the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court (Coram : Hon'ble the Chief Justice Mr. Vikram Nath and Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala, as Their Lordships then were), had vide judgment dated 28.07.2020 (as modified vide order on speaking to minutes dated 20.08.2020) declined to interfere with the decision of the learned Co-ordinate Bench, more particularly observing that in case any representation is preferred by the petitioners, the same would be decided by the University within a period of 08 days and the petitioners were required to be intimated about the decision on the representation.
7.6 It appears that the petitioners had preferred Civil Appeal No. 91 of 2021 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and whereas vide an order dated 12.01.2021, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had while noting that a representation had already been preferred by the petitioners, interfered to the extent of setting aside operative portion of the impugned orders i.e. the orders of this Court as well as setting aside order passed by the learned Tribunal dated 27.09.2019 and had directed the Tribunal to examine the case of the petitioners on merits, as expeditiously as Page 6 of 22 Uploaded by BHUPENDRASINH SONAGRA(HC01082) on Sat Aug 02 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 22:17:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14222/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined possible. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had also acknowledged the entitlement of the petitioners to prefer application for interim relief. 7.7 It appears that upon the main applications preferred by the petitioners being restored before the learned Tribunal, the petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 14222 of 2024 had preferred an application for grant of interim relief and whereas vide order dated 15.07.2021, request for interim relief was rejected, with a further direction that the main application would be listed on Board at least three times a week for ensuring expeditious decision.
7.8 It appears that the decision of the Tribunal dated 15.07.2021 had been assailed by the petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 14222 of 2024 by preferring Special Civil Application No. 11317 of 2021, and whereas a learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 11.01.2022, had directed reinstatement of the petitioner till final disposal of the original application and whereas the Tribunal was directed to decide the main application within a period of 06 months from the date of receipt of the decision of this Court.
7.9 It appears that the respondent-University had assailed the order passed by the learned Co-ordinate Bench dated 11.01.2022 by preferring Page 7 of 22 Uploaded by BHUPENDRASINH SONAGRA(HC01082) on Sat Aug 02 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 22:17:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14222/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined Letters Patent Appeal No. 182 of 2022, and whereas vide an order dated 14.02.2022, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court had while issuing Rule, granted ad-interim relief in terms of staying the direction of reinstatement while specifically not interfering with the direction of speedy disposal.
7.10 Later on, vide order dated 29.03.2022, request of the original petitioner for vacating interim relief was not considered whereas request of the University for confirming the interim relief had been upheld. It appears that the said decision had been challenged by the employee by approaching the Hon'ble Supreme Court by preferring SLP Nos. 7259- 7261 of 2022 and whereas vide order dated 02.05.2022, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had declined to interfere with the order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court.
7.11 It appears that ultimately, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court had decided the Letters Patent Appeal No. 182 of 2022 vide order dated 15.02.2024 by setting aside the order of the learned Co-ordinate Bench dated 11.01.2022 and further directing that the application pending before the Tribunal should be decided by 31.03.2024. The employee had again assailed the order of the Hon'ble Division Bench before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and vide order dated 16.04.2024, the Hon'ble Supreme Page 8 of 22 Uploaded by BHUPENDRASINH SONAGRA(HC01082) on Sat Aug 02 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 22:17:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14222/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined Court had inter alia not interfered with the order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench and further noting that since Tribunal was not functioning, the petition was directed to be heard by this Court, within a period of 04 months.
7.12 It appears that later on, vide an order dated 31.07.2024 in Special Civil Application No. 8189 of 2024 i.e. the number given to the relegated matter, a learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had noted that the Tribunal which was non-functional when the matter was taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, had now become functional on account of Members being appointed and hence the learned Co-ordinate Bench had restored the applications preferred before the learned Tribunal and directed the learned Tribunal to decided all the main applications along with connected applications on or before 31.10.2024. 7.13 From the chronology as above, it would be clear that while originally learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had granted ad-interim relief of reinstatement, the same had not be complied with and the same had also not been extended by the learned Tribunal. Furthermore, while the learned Tribunal had refused to grant interim relief in the application, vide order dated 11.01.2022 in Special Civil Application No.11317 of 2021, the same had been interfered with by a learned Co-ordinate Bench Page 9 of 22 Uploaded by BHUPENDRASINH SONAGRA(HC01082) on Sat Aug 02 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 22:17:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14222/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined of this Court. The said order of the learned Co-ordinate Bench had been stayed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court and the interim relief granted had not been interfered with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Division Bench vide decision dated 15.02.2024 had set aside the decision of the learned Co-ordinate Bench dated 11.02.2022, which decision was also not interfered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thus, insofar the issue of interim relief is concerned, the issues had attained finality and whereas the matter was to be decided finally by the learned Tribunal.
7.14 From the above chronology, it would also be evident that the present petitions are virtually the 5th round of litigation inasmuch as, the first order of the learned Co-ordinate Bench of not interfering and on granting ad-interim relief had reached upto the Division Bench where the order of the learned Co-ordinate Bench had been confirmed by the Hon'ble Division Bench. The later rounds of litigation with regard to requirement of procedure under Section 11 of the Act not being followed and later as regards interim relief, had travelled thrice upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thus, what is sought to be emphasized is the fact that there is yet to be a final adjudication on the main prayer of the petitioners which is pending before the Tribunal which is having the original Page 10 of 22 Uploaded by BHUPENDRASINH SONAGRA(HC01082) on Sat Aug 02 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 22:17:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14222/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined jurisdiction to decide the issue and whereas there has been a plethora of litigations on ancillary/interim issues.
7.15 At this stage, it would be relevant to observe that the learned Co- ordinate Bench vide order dated 31.07.2024 had inter alia noted the fact that closing Pursis dated 21.03.2024 had been tendered insofar as the petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 14222 of 2024 is concerned. It also appears that insofar as the other main applications are concerned, closing Pursis had been tendered by the learned Advocate for the applicants on the same date. It appears that the University had also tendered closing Pursis on 19.09.2024 in all the main applications. 7.16 It appears that after the Pursis for closing evidence had been tendered on behalf of the petitioners on 21.03.2024, the (Miscellaneous) Applications referred to hereinabove had been preferred by the petitioners on 04.04.2024, for requesting to exhibit newspaper article dated 13.11.2018 for the purpose of admitting the same as evidence, as well as requested to place electronic record in from of CD and transcript be given a final exhibit number for producing the same in evidence. All the applications came to be rejected by the learned Tribunal vide orders dated 19.09.2024, being aggrieved by which, the petitioners have approached this Court.
Page 11 of 22 Uploaded by BHUPENDRASINH SONAGRA(HC01082) on Sat Aug 02 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 22:17:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14222/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined
8. While the learned Advocates for both the sides have argued against and in favour of the orders impugned and have also relied upon decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in support of their arguments, yet, to this Court it would appear that the core issue of the (Miscellaneous) Applications before the learned Tribunal and consequently, the present petitions also being misconceived have not been appreciated by any one. To appreciate the observation of this Court, it would be apposite to state that the three evidences i.e. the news paper article, the CD and the transcript, are with regard to an incident which had been referred to by the learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the first decision in the melee of litigations. The incident being a conversation between office bearers of the University and a Press Reporter where the officer bearers of the University have allegedly remarked that the services of the petitioners had been terminated since they had approached the High Court. To this Court, it would appear that any evidence with regard to wrongful, arbitrary, vindictive and vengeful termination would have been relevant evidence, if the termination was the question in dispute. As it appears, termination is not the core issue in dispute. The prayers made in the applications preferred by the petitioners before the Tribunal are the same as had been sought for before this Court in the first round of litigation i.e. for regularization and for grant of equal pay for equal work.
Page 12 of 22 Uploaded by BHUPENDRASINH SONAGRA(HC01082) on Sat Aug 02 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 22:17:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14222/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined
To this Court it would appear that when the primary issue pending consideration before the Tribunal was with regard to a prayer for regularization and whereas when the issue of refusal of interim relief by the Tribunal has attained finality, no purpose whatsoever would be served by clinging on to the aspect of alleged wrongful termination during pendency of the litigation. To this Court it would appear that in case the learned Tribunal were to positively consider the request of the petitioners for grant of regularization, then as a natural corollary, the termination during pendency of the first writ petition before this Court would have to be declared as unlawful and it would not make any difference whatsoever whether the termination was arbitrary, vindictive, vengeful etc.
9. It is well settled position of law that once a litigation is preferred before a competent Court of law, whatever happens in the subject matter of litigation would be governed by the final orders passed in the said litigation. In the instant case, while the petitioners had originally approached this Court by preferring Special Civil Application No. 10020 of 2018 and allied writ petitions, during pendency of the said petitions, the services of the petitioners had been terminated. As a natural corollary of the said event, since this Court had directed the learned Tribunal to decide the main applications and since it appears that it is a continuing Page 13 of 22 Uploaded by BHUPENDRASINH SONAGRA(HC01082) on Sat Aug 02 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 22:17:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14222/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined litigation, if the Tribunal deems the petitioners entitled for benefit of regularization, then consequently, the decision of termination, would also have to be interfered with. Therefore, to this Court, it would appear that no fruitful purpose would be served in deciding as to whether termination was vengeful or not.
9.1 On the other hand, it would also appear to this Court that from the material on record, the learned Tribunal could very well be entitled to decide, as to whether the termination of services of the petitioners was legally justified or arbitrary. That is to say that in case the learned Tribunal were of the opinion that the petitioners were entitled to the benefit of regularization, or even the benefit of equal pay for equal work, then also, on the basis of material on record, the learned Tribunal would be able to decide as to whether the termination was justified or unjustified and whereas the only purpose which is sought to be achieved by bringing the present documents in issue on record is to justify a submission that the termination was an act of retaliation by the University, actuated with malice as the petitioners had approached this Court. It would appear to this Court as observed hereinabove that in view of the plethora of litigation without the issue being finally concluded, it would be in the interest of all concerned to ensure that the litigations i.e. the main Page 14 of 22 Uploaded by BHUPENDRASINH SONAGRA(HC01082) on Sat Aug 02 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 22:17:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14222/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined applications are concluded as early as possible rather than wasting time, efforts and precious judicial time on fringe issues.
10. The observations acquire further significance in view of the fact that all the Courts including the Tribunal itself at some point or other, more particularly in later stages of the litigation were inclined or had given a direction for expeditious final decision of the main applications for regularization. To substantiate, it would appear that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in order dated 12.01.2021, wherein decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench, confirming decision of the learned Single Judge, which further confirmed decision of learned Tribunal of directing the petitioners to follow the procedure under Section 11 of the Act, had been challenged, had while setting aside the decision of the learned Tribunal and operative part of decisions of this Court, had directed that the matter may be taken up as expeditiously as possible. The learned Tribunal vide decision dated 15.07.2021 in application for grant of interim relief, while refusing the same had also observed that the main application would be taken up for hearing at least three times in a week. In the judgment dated 11.01.2022 in Special Civil Application No. 11317 of 2021, where the decision of the learned Tribunal refusing to grant interim relief to the petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 14222 of Page 15 of 22 Uploaded by BHUPENDRASINH SONAGRA(HC01082) on Sat Aug 02 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 22:17:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14222/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined 2024, had been assailed, learned Co-ordinate Bench had while directing reinstatement of the petitioner, had also directed that the main application be decided within a period of 06 months from the date of receipt of the decision.
11. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court vide decision dated 15.02.2024 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 182 of 2022 where decision of the learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 11.01.2022 had been assailed, had while setting aside the decision of the learned Co-ordinate Bench, directed that final decision in Application No. 65 of 2019 (the application preferred by the petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 14222 of 2024) be arrived at by the Tribunal on or before 31.03.2024.
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 8334 of 2024, where decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court dated 15.02.2024 had been assailed, had requested this Court, in view of non-availability of Tribunal, to decide the application within a period of 04 months. The learned Co-ordinate Bench vide decision dated 31.07.2024 in Special Civil Application No. 8189 of 2024 i.e. the relegated matter, while restoring the application before the learned Tribunal in view of the Tribunal having become functional, had directed that all the applications be decided on or before 31.10.2024. Inspite of repeated directions of the Page 16 of 22 Uploaded by BHUPENDRASINH SONAGRA(HC01082) on Sat Aug 02 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 22:17:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14222/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined learned Co-ordinate Benches, the Hon'ble Division Bench and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the applications have not attained finality and whereas, in view of an interim direction by the learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 03.10.2024, permitting the petitioners to seek an adjournment, the matters have not proceeded any further before the learned Tribunal.
13. It is in view of the above considerations i.e. no fruitful purpose would be served by deciding the present petitions since the issue in question would be inconsequential in view of the final reliefs sought for before the learned Tribunal and in view of the consideration that all the Courts including the Hon'ble Supreme Court were of the opinion that the main applications require to be decided expeditiously and in order to quell any further protraction of the litigation that this Court had expressed its opinion at the commencement of this judgment that the present petitions are but misconceived and in view of totality of the facts, are not required to be entertained.
14. At this stage, this Court seeks to refer to observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court made in case of M.S. Sanjay Vs. Indian Bank and Others, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 368. Paragraph Nos. 9 and 10 of the said decision being relevant for the present purpose are Page 17 of 22 Uploaded by BHUPENDRASINH SONAGRA(HC01082) on Sat Aug 02 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 22:17:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14222/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined reproduced hereinbelow for benefit.
"9. It is well settled that interference by the Writ Court for mere infraction of any statutory provision or norms, if such in- fraction has not resulted in injustice is not a matter of course. In the case of Shiv Shanker Dal Mills v. State of Haryana reported in (1980) 2 SCC 437, the dealers in that case had paid market fees at the increased rate of 3%, which was raised from the original 2 per cent under Haryana Act 22 of 1977. The excess of 1 per cent over the original rate was declared ultra vires by this Court in the case of Kewal Krishna Puri v. State of Punjab reported in (1980) 1 SCC 416. The excess of 1 per cent over the original rate having been declared ultra vires, became refundable to the respective dealers from whom they were recovered by the Market Committee concerned. The demand for refund of the excess amounts illegally recovered from them not having been complied with, the dealers filed Writ Petitions under Article 32 and Article 226 of the Constitution for a direction to that effect to the Market Committee concerned. The Market Committees contended that although the refund of the excess collections might be legally due to the dealers, many of them had in turn recovered this excess percentage from the next purchasers. While disposing of the petition and laying down guidelines, this Court held as under:
"Article 226 grants an extraordinary remedy, which is essentially discretionary, although founded on legal injury. It is perfectly open for the court, exercising this flexible power, to pass such order as public interest dictates and equity projects. Courts of equity may, and frequently do, go much further both to give and withhold relief in furtherance of the public interest than they are accustomed to go where only private interests are involved. Accordingly, the granting or withholding of relief may properly be dependent upon considerations as of public interest."
10. It has been rightly observed that legal formulations cannot be enforced divorced from the realities of the fact situation of the case. While administering law it is to be tempered with equity and Page 18 of 22 Uploaded by BHUPENDRASINH SONAGRA(HC01082) on Sat Aug 02 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 22:17:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14222/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined if the equitable situation demands after setting right the legal formulations not to take it to the logical end, the High Court would be failing in its duty if it does not notice equitable consideration and mould the final order in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction. Any other approach would render the High Court a normal Court of Appeal, which it is not. It is a settled principle of law that the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is discretionary in nature and in a given case, even if some action or order challenged in the petition is found to be illegal and invalid, the High Court while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction thereunder can refuse to upset it with a view to doing substantial justice between the parties. "
15. Considering the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court from the perspective of the fact situation, it would appear that powers granted to the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is an extraordinary and discretionary remedy. That the High Courts are Courts of equity and are empowered to go much further to give and withhold relief in furtherance of public interest. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held that the High Court is not to exercise its jurisdiction as a normal Court of appeal and would be failing in its duty, if it does not exercise equitable consideration and mould the final order, which ought not to be diversed from the realities of the fact situation of the case.
16. To this Court, it would appear that the petitioners may or may not have a valid and justifiable reason to challenge the decisions of the Tribunal dated 19.09.2024, yet, having regard to the fact that the Page 19 of 22 Uploaded by BHUPENDRASINH SONAGRA(HC01082) on Sat Aug 02 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 22:17:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14222/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined (Miscellaneous) applications before the Tribunal were itself to this Court misconceived and further having regard to the fact that it would be in interest of all parties, more particularly in the interest of the petitioners to have the main applications itself decided expeditiously and to ensure that at least there should not be any further litigation on the interim issues, to this Court it would appear that the best and the most equitable course of action would be not to entertain the present writ petitions and at the same time direct the learned Tribunal to decide the main applications within a fixed time frame and to further direct the parties to cooperate with the learned Tribunal in expeditious decision on the main applications.
17. At this stage, this Court would be failing in its duties if it is not observed that learned Advocates are not mere mouthpiece of the litigants, it is the duty of the Advocates to give proper advice to the litigants and not to prefer litigations as instructed by their clients on real or imaginary grievances. The petitioners may have a grievance that during pendency of a writ petition before this Court, praying for regularization, the University had acted vindictively and vengefully to terminate services of the petitioners, yet, after the plethora of litigations as referred to hereinabove, it would have been in the best interest of the petitioners to have focused on the issue of regularization rather than try and prove that the removal Page 20 of 22 Uploaded by BHUPENDRASINH SONAGRA(HC01082) on Sat Aug 02 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 22:17:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14222/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined was arbitrary. As observed by this Court if the petitioners are successful in getting an order of regularization, reinstatement would be a natural corollary and except for some admonitions/strictures upon the University, it would not have mattered as to whether the removal was illegal or arbitrary. If the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide the last decision dated 16.04.2024 as followed by the learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide decision dated 31.07.2024, was complied with in true letter and spirit, at least before the Tribunal the main applications would have been over months back. Thus, protracting the litigation has on the contrary resulted in prejudice to the petitioners themselves and no one else. This Court deems it appropriate to leave the issue at that.
18. Having regard to the above discussion, observations and conclusions, the following directions are issued.
(i) The present petitions fail and are hereby rejected.
(ii) The learned Tribunal is directed to decide the main applications No. 65 of 2019(U), 76 of 2021(U), 77 of 2021(U) and 78 of 2021(U), as expeditiously as possible, but not later than 30.09.2025.
(iii) The parties are directed to cooperate with the learned Tribunal in expeditious decision on the main applications.Page 21 of 22 Uploaded by BHUPENDRASINH SONAGRA(HC01082) on Sat Aug 02 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 22:17:53 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14222/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined
19. With the above observations and directions, the present petitions are disposed of as rejected.
(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J) BDSONGARA Page 22 of 22 Uploaded by BHUPENDRASINH SONAGRA(HC01082) on Sat Aug 02 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 22:17:53 IST 2025