AZIZ MUSABHAI BANDIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

     C/SCA/3192/2026                              JUDGMENT DATED: 10/03/2026




       IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

            R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3192 of 2026


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE :


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI

=========================================
     Approved for Reporting Yes    No
                                   NO
=========================================
                             AZIZ MUSABHAI BANDI
                                     Versus
                            STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
=========================================
Appearance :
MR ASHUTOSH S DAVE for the Petitioner.
MS KINJAL VYAS, AGP for the Respondents.
=========================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI

                              Date : 10/03/2026
                              ORAL JUDGMENT


1.              By way of the present petition, the petitioner has
challenged the order dated 31.12.2025 passed by the State Project
Engineer, Gujarat Council of School Education, Vidhya Samiksha
Kendra, Gandhinagar whereby upon completion of petitioner’s old
contract, the petitioner was o>ered a new contract as TRP, Padra,
Dist. Vadodara instead of petitioner’s earlier place of working as
per old contract which had already lived its life as TRP,
Mahemdabad.            The petitioner has also prayed for quashing and
setting aside the order dated 21.1.2026 whereby the petitioner was
relieved from Mahemdabad, Kheda zone by respondent No.3.




                                   Page 1 of 7
     C/SCA/3192/2026                            JUDGMENT DATED: 10/03/2026




2.              At the outset, learned advocate Mr. Ashutosh Dave
appearing for the petitioner submitted that though it is a well
settled law that transfer is an incident of service, looking to the
peculiar facts of the case, the present petition is required to be
entertained. According to Mr. Dave, the petitioner was appointed
as Civil Engineer on contractual basis under Sarva Sikshan Abhiyan
on 4.2.2010 and he was posted at various places. Every time, upon
completion of petitioner’s contract, new contract used to be o>ered
to the petitioner in a di>erent District and the petitioner had
already served in various districts. But this fact must end at some
day and, therefore, when the petitioner was o>ered new contract at
Padra, Dist. Vadodara vide order dated 3.1.12.2025, the petitioner
has challenged the same by way of this petition. Mr. Dave further
submitted that the petitioner has already been relieved from his
duty as TRP, Mahemdabad vide order dated 21.1.2026 and,
therefore, that order is also required to be quashed and the
petitioner is required to be o>ered a new contract as TRP,
Mahemdabad.


3.              Mr. Dave also relied upon terms of the contract which
was Brst time o>ered to the petitioner in the year 2010 and pointed
out that terms do not state anything about the fact that the nature
of the job of the petitioner would be a transferable job and,
therefore, the petitioner’s transfer cannot be said to have been
made legally or for any justiBable reason in absence of there being
any speciBc clause about the fact that the nature of the petitioner’s
job is transferable job.


4.              In support of his submissions, Mr. Dave relied upon the
decision of the coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of


                                  Page 2 of 7
     C/SCA/3192/2026                                 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/03/2026




Vegada Varsha Revashankar (Supra) v. State of Gujarat and
others, delivered on 5.8.2015 in Special Civil Application
No.12419 of 2015 wherein while allowing the petition and
quashing and setting aside the impugned order of transfer, the
coordinate Bench directed the State to re-transfer the petitioner to
the place where she was earlier appointed after being selected to
the post of Deputy Mamlatdar.                  Mr. Dave also relied upon
paragraph 3 of the said decision which is based on a decision dated
11.6.2015 passed in Special Civil Application No.9191 of 2015
wherein in paragraph 15, the coordinate Bench observed that as
the petitioner while having been o>ered a contractual job had no
option but agree to the appointment on contractual basis on Bxed
pay. The petitioners, therefore, were left with no choice but to
compromise and work on a Bxed pay basis for a pittance, without
any other beneBts associated with the Government services. Mr.
Dave further submitted that in that case also, as the transfer was
not done as per the ratio of 3 : 1 between the promotees and direct
recruits, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of
the case, the coordinate Bench of this Court had quashed the order
of transfer and ordered to re-transfer the said petitioner.


                Except the above submission and decision, no other
submission/decision was made/cited by learned advocate Mr. Dave.


5.              Ms. Kinjal Vyas, learned Assistant Government Pleader
appearing for the respondents vehemently opposed the petition and
submitted that the petitioner though is terming the action under
challenge as transfer, as such, it is not a transfer and the
petitioner, upon completion of old contract which had lived its life,
was o>ered job by way of new contract at a di>erent place. She


                                 Page 3 of 7
     C/SCA/3192/2026                           JUDGMENT DATED: 10/03/2026




further submitted that it was an admitted position which was even
admitted by Mr. Dave also that in the past also, the petitioner was
transferred to various Districts as he was o>ered contract in
various Districts and the petitioner had accepted the same and
there is nothing exceptional which the petitioner could point out in
the present contract dated 31.12.2025. She further submitted that
the petitioner has already been relieved on 21.1.2026 and,
therefore, the relieving order has also been issued and once the
petitioner is already relieved, the petitioner ought not to have
prayed for quashing of the said order.


6.              Ms. Vyas further submitted that new contract was
o>ered vide order dated 31.12.2025 and it is for the petitioner to
decide whether to accept the aforesaid o>er or not. The contract
would complete only upon petitioner’s acceptance of the contract
and no one can force the petitioner to accept the aforesaid contract
if the petitioner does not want to serve at a place for which the
contract is o>ered and it is a matter of petitioner’s own choice, but
the petitioner cannot insist that he may be o>ered a contract at a
place where he was serving earlier. She further submitted that as
the petitioner has not accepted the contract till date, there is no
accrued or vested right in favour of the petitioner to prefer a
petition and seek a relief that the petitioner should be o>ered
contract to serve at a particular place of his own choice.


7.              Ms. Vyas further submitted that even if the order of
o>ering new contract may be termed as transfer by the petitioner,
in that case also, the distance between Mahemdabad and Padra
would be around maximum 80 Kms. which cannot be said to be a
transfer at a very distance place which may cause great hardship to


                                 Page 4 of 7
     C/SCA/3192/2026                            JUDGMENT DATED: 10/03/2026




the petitioner. Ms. Vyas further submitted that in the past also, the
petitioner had served to various Districts and, therefore, unless
some exceptional circumstances are pointed out, it cannot be said
that the order o>ering new contract to the petitioner as TRP, Padra
is unreasonable or illegal.


8.              Ms. Vyas thereafter drew attention of this Court to the
decision relied upon by Mr. Dave and pointed out that the
coordinate Bench of this Court quashed the order of transfer on
account of the fact that the ratio between the promotees and direct
recruits in that transfer was violated. Ms. Vyas further submitted
that the posts on which the petitioner is serving and the post on
which the case of Vegada Varsha Revashankar (Supra) was
considered are di>erent and both the posts are governed by
di>erent service conditions and considering the fact that every
contract has its own terms, when the petitioner is o>ered new
contract and when he is not transferred in the midst of the
contract, the petitioner cannot raise a grievance that he has been
transferred and he should have been o>ered a new contract at his
earlier place of work only. She, therefore, prayed for dismissal of
the petition.


9.              I have heard learned advocates appearing for the
respective parties and perused the record.          On perusal of the
record, I Bnd that the language of the order dated 31.12.2025 is
absolutely clear and unambiguous. The aforesaid communication
is, in fact, an o>er whereby a new contract is o>ered to the
petitioner and other persons to work as TRP Padra, Dist. Vadodara
at various places.      It also indicates that the petitioner’s term of
earlier contracts has already been over and, therefore, it is not a


                                  Page 5 of 7
      C/SCA/3192/2026                                     JUDGMENT DATED: 10/03/2026




case that in the midst of the contract, the petitioner has been
transferred at a di>erent place. Therefore, even if the present case
is considered, from the view point of whether a person can be
transferred in the midst of contractual period and if there is no
condition about the transfer, whether such transfer can be said to
be illegal or not. But that question also would have no signiBcance
in the facts and circumstances of the present case upon completion
of earlier contract. Now, the petitioner is o>ered another contract
at a di>erent place and, therefore, those questions are not required
to be considered by this Court.


10.              Further, the facts of the decision cited in the case of
Vegada Varsha Revashankar (Supra) and the reason for which
the transfer was held to be bad and quashed and the petitioner was
re-transferred are di>erent, and the terms of contract are also
di>erent as well and Mr. Dave could not point out that the terms of
contract        were    identical   in   the       case   of    Vegada        Varsha
Revashankar (Supra) and in the case of the petitioner. Therefore,
the said decision relied upon by learned advocate Mr. Dave would
not help the petitioner.


11.              Considering the fact that though it is termed as
transfer, it is actually an o>er of new contract to the petitioner.
The same cannot be treated or viewed as if it is a case of transfer
and it is for the petitioner if he wants to join as per the new
contract at a new place as per his choice and volition and if the
petitioner Bnds that practically, economically or socially, it is not
viable for him to accept the above o>er, the Court cannot force the
State Government or the appropriate respondent authority to o>er
a new contract to the petitioner at a place of his choice.


                                     Page 6 of 7
     C/SCA/3192/2026                                                              JUDGMENT DATED: 10/03/2026




Accordingly, the petition is required to be dismissed and the same
stands dismissed.


                                                                                 (NIRZAR S. DESAI,J)


SAVARIYA
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: RAJNISH NARENDRA SAVARIYA(HC00179), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 10/03/2026 17:18:35




                                                      Page 7 of 7