Gujarat High Court
Hardik Pradipbhai Joshi vs State Of Gujarat on 3 November, 2023
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal, N.V.Anjaria
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1313/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2023
undefined
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
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1314 of 2022
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18485 of 2019
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1314 of 2022
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18485 of 2019
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1315 of 2022
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18921 of 2019
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1315 of 2022
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18921 of 2019
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1318 of 2022
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17521 of 2019
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1318 of 2022
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17521 of 2019
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1319 of 2022
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18352 of 2019
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1319 of 2022
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18352 of 2019
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1316 of 2022
In
Page 1 of 31
Downloaded on : Tue Nov 07 20:37:28 IST 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1313/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2023
undefined
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16165 of 2019
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1316 of 2022
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16165 of 2019
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1321 of 2022
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17791 of 2019
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1321 of 2022
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17791 of 2019
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1320 of 2022
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18831 of 2019
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1320 of 2022
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18831 of 2019
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1317 of 2022
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17792 of 2019
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1317 of 2022
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17792 of 2019
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1360 of 2022
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16676 of 2020
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1360 of 2022
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16676 of 2020
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR DIRECTION) NO. 1 of 2023
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1360 of 2022
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16676 of 2020
Page 2 of 31
Downloaded on : Tue Nov 07 20:37:28 IST 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1313/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2023
undefined
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1359 of 2022
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6771 of 2020
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1359 of 2022
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6771 of 2020
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1358 of 2022
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6899 of 2022
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1358 of 2022
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6899 of 2022
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 112 of 2023
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7038 of 2021
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 112 of 2023
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7038 of 2021
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1050 of 2023
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14695 of 2019
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR INTERIM RELIEF) NO. 1 of 2023
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1050 of 2023
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14695 of 2019
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
=============================================================
Page 3 of 31
Downloaded on : Tue Nov 07 20:37:28 IST 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1313/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2023
undefined
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
JEENAL ACHARYA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
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
JEENAL ACHARYA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
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
Downloaded on : Tue Nov 07 20:37:28 IST 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1313/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2023
undefined
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 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 07 20:37:28 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1313/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2023 undefined 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 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 07 20:37:28 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1313/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2023 undefined 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 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 07 20:37:28 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1313/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2023 undefined 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 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 07 20:37:28 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1313/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2023 undefined 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 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 07 20:37:28 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1313/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2023 undefined 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 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 07 20:37:28 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1313/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2023 undefined 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 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 07 20:37:28 IST 2023NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1313/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2023 undefined
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 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 07 20:37:28 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1313/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2023 undefined 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 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 07 20:37:28 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1313/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2023 undefined "....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 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 07 20:37:28 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1313/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2023 undefined 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 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 07 20:37:28 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1313/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2023 undefined 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 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 07 20:37:28 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1313/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2023 undefined "..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 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 07 20:37:28 IST 2023NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1313/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2023 undefined 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 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 07 20:37:28 IST 2023NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1313/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2023 undefined 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 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 07 20:37:28 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1313/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2023 undefined 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 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 07 20:37:28 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1313/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2023 undefined 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 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 07 20:37:28 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1313/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2023 undefined 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 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 07 20:37:28 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1313/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2023 undefined 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 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 07 20:37:28 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1313/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2023 undefined 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 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 07 20:37:28 IST 2023NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1313/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2023 undefined 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 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 07 20:37:28 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1313/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2023 undefined 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 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 07 20:37:28 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1313/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2023 undefined 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 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 07 20:37:28 IST 2023NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1313/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2023 undefined 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 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 07 20:37:28 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1313/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2023 undefined 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 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 07 20:37:28 IST 2023NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1313/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2023 undefined 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 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 07 20:37:28 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1313/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2023 undefined 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 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 07 20:37:28 IST 2023