Gujarat High Court
Umeshkumar Mangalbhai Patel & 5 vs The State Of Gujarat & 2 on 21 June, 2017
Author: Mohinder Pal
Bench: Mohinder Pal
C/SCA/15060/2015 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15060 of 2015
==========================================================
UMESHKUMAR MANGALBHAI PATEL & 5....Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF GUJARAT & 2....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PA JADEJA, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 - 6
MR TIRTHRAJ PANDYA AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - 2
MR MJ MEHTA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL
Date : 21/06/2017
ORAL ORDER
1. Petitioners, by way of this petition, under Articles 14 and 226 of the Constitution of India, have prayed for continuation of their services being ad-hoc lecturers Class-II serving in Government Diploma Engineering Colleges in the State of Gujarat.
2. Facts giving rise to this petition are that respondent No.2 issued advertisement on its website and leading newspaper in the year 2012 as well as in the year 2013 for filling up Ad-hoc vacant posts of Assistant Professor in Degree Engineering Colleges and for filling up Ad-hoc vacant posts of Lecturers in Diploma Engineering Colleges in various branches in the State of Gujarat. The aforesaid advertisement by respondent No.2 was for filling Page 1 of 5 HC-NIC Page 1 of 5 Created On Wed Aug 16 11:28:38 IST 2017 C/SCA/15060/2015 ORDER up posts in both the degree and diploma engineering colleges across the State of Gujarat on contractual basis for a fixed period of 11 months or till the regularly selected candidates are available by GPSC, whichever is earlier. The petitioners being qualified were issued appointment letters on 3rd October, 2012 and 19th October, 2013 respectively on fixed monthly salary of Rs.25,000/- for a period of 11 months. After completion of service of 11 months, petitioners approached this Court by way of writ petitions. The writ petitions came to be disposed of by this Court with direction that petitioners will be continued in service till regularly selected candidates by GPSC are available. Thereafter, petitioners were continued in service. Later on, GPSC seems to have advertised certain posts of Lecturers to which petitioners also applied. There were in all 24 sanctioned posts in the State of Gujarat. Out of 24, 10 posts are filled up by candidates regularly selected by GPSC. Out of remaining 14 posts, 10 posts were filled up by candidates on ad-hoc basis and 4 posts remained vacant.
3. GPSC came out with an advertisement on 30th September, 2013 to fill up 10 ad-hoc posts lying vacant with them. After conducting recruitment process, 8 candidates were selected and letters of appointment were issued to them. Out of these 8 candidates selected by GPSC, 3 candidates are from amongst the 10 candidates who are already working on ad-hoc basis. Thus, out of said advertisement, 8 persons were selected by GPSC and therefore, appointments were made. It is the case of the petitioners that out of total sanctioned posts of 24, after appointments were Page 2 of 5 HC-NIC Page 2 of 5 Created On Wed Aug 16 11:28:38 IST 2017 C/SCA/15060/2015 ORDER made, the current scenario was that there were in all 18 lecturers selected through GPSC and 7 ad-hoc lecturers, which makes the total number of lecturers to be 25. It is further case of the petitioners that as the sanctioned strength in the State of Gujarat was 24, thus 1 lecturer was required to be terminated. However, respondents vide impugned order dated 8th September, 2015, terminated services of 6 ad-hoc lecturers including present petitioners, which has given cause to prefer the present petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that there were 24 sanctioned posts of lecturers in the State of Gujarat and even if 8 more lecturers have been recommended by GPSC, still the State Government was short of six lecturers and accordingly, the present petitioners should have been retained in service. This was particularly so, as the petitioners have earlier approached this Court and protection has been granted to the petitioners to be continued in service on ad-hoc posts till regularly selected incumbents take their place.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has made a reference to the decision of this Court in the case of Pradeepbhai Navinbhai Patel & Others V/s. State of Gujarat & others, reported in 2014 (2) GLH 501, wherein, it has been held that the frequent resort to ad-hocism ought not to have been made and process of ad-hoc appointment over and over till regular selected candidates are available, would be detrimental. This decision is based upon the earlier decision of Division Bench of this Court dated Page 3 of 5 HC-NIC Page 3 of 5 Created On Wed Aug 16 11:28:38 IST 2017 C/SCA/15060/2015 ORDER 7.9.2011 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.2986/2010. Para-35 of the said judgment reads as follow:
"35. Accordingly, as a cumulative effect of the above discussion and for reasons stated hereinabove and in view of the judgment of the Division Bench dated 7.9.2011 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.2986/2010 and connected matters, the petitions are partly allowed to the extent that the services of the petitioners as Assistant Professors / Lecturers on temporary / contractual basis in Government Engineering Colleges and Government Polytechnics shall not be terminated, till regularly selected candidates by the GPSC are available".
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-State contested the petition by filing detailed reply; wherein, it has been stated that the respondents were within their rights to have terminated the vacancy of ad-hoc lecturers in view of the fact that 8 lecturers have been selected by GPSC, in view of order dated 8th September, 2015.
7. Otherwise also, counsel for the GPSC has submitted that GPSC is the recruiting authority and it is their prerogative whether to continue or to terminate the services of the petitioners on ad-hoc lecturers.
8. This Court has considered the submissions of both the sides. There is no dispute that 8 lecturers have been selected by GPSC and has been made available to the respondents vide order dated 8th September, 2015. It is settled by now that ad-hoc employees cannot be replaced by other ad-hoc employees meaning thereby petitioners were required to be continued till duly selected candidates by Page 4 of 5 HC-NIC Page 4 of 5 Created On Wed Aug 16 11:28:38 IST 2017 C/SCA/15060/2015 ORDER GPSC are available. As is apparent from the facts of the petitioners that 8 duly selected candidates by the GPSC were available and the respondents wanted to replace the present petitioners, there is nothing wrong in the process of selection or replacement of the petitioners in view of the fact that they are being replaced by the duly selected candidates.
9. Under these circumstances, this petition being devoid of any merits, is dismissed. Notice is discharged.
(MOHINDER PAL, J.) ashish Page 5 of 5 HC-NIC Page 5 of 5 Created On Wed Aug 16 11:28:38 IST 2017