SHAHEDA NURUDDINBHAI LONKHANDWALAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

     C/SCA/1131/2018                                  ORDER DATED: 22/04/2026




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

      R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1131 of 2018

=============================================
            SHAHEDA NURUDDINBHAI LONKHANDWALA
                           Versus
                  STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
=============================================
Appearance:
MR SANJU NAKHVA FOR MR ANVESH V VYAS(5654) for the
Petitioner(s) No. 1
ADVOCATE NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1
DS AFF.NOT FILED (N) for the Respondent(s) No. 3,4
MS MANISHA LAVKUMAR, ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL WITH
MR KRUTIK PARIKH, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
=============================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT

                             Date : 22/04/2026

                                  ORAL ORDER
1.    Heard            Mr.Sanju    Nakhva,        learned    advocate           for
Mr.Anvesh Vyas, learned advocate for the petitioner and
Ms.Manisha Lavkumar, learned Additional Advocate General
assisted by Mr.Krutik Parikh, learned AGP for respondent
Nos.1 to 4.


2.    The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs :


        “(A) Be pleased to allow this application.

        (B) Be pleased to issue a writ order or direction directing
        the respondent to regularise the service of the petitioner
        for the post of lecturer (Class-II).

         (C) Be pleased to pass an order directing the respondents
        to consider the recruitment procedure followed while
        selecting the petitioner for the post of lecturer as a regular
        selection procedure.


                                    Page 1 of 5
     C/SCA/1131/2018                                ORDER DATED: 22/04/2026




        (D) PENDING ADMISSION AND HEARING OF THIS PETITION,
        be pleased to stay any further selection procedure of fresh
        recruitment for the same post by respondent department
        issued as per the advertisement dated 16/10/2017 in the
        interest of justice.”



3.    The petitioner was appointed as ad hoc Lecturer, Class-
II at Government Ayurveda College, Vadodara in the year
2001. It is not in dispute that as per the conditions of the
appointment, the petitioner's services can be terminated in
the case where a regularly selected candidate through a
direct selection process undertaken by the Gujarat Public
Service Commission (GPSC) is available. Since the process of
regular     selection   was    undertaken      by     respondent          No.1
wherein, the petitioner was unable to clear the test and as a
regularly selected candidate was available, the petitioner's
services came to be terminated.


4.    At the outset, Ms. Manisha Lavkumar, learned Additional
Advocate General would rely upon the decision of the Division
Bench of this Court dated 03/11/2023 passed in the case of
Hardik Pradipbhai Joshi vs. State of Gujarat, being
Letters Patent Appeal No. 1313 of 2022 and allied
matters and submit that the issue germane to the matter is
squarely covered by the aforesaid decision, whereby the
prayers made in this petition cannot be granted in favour of
the petitioner.


5.    This Court has gone through the aforesaid decision
wherein, in somewhat identical situations germane to this
matter, the Division Bench of this Court held thus:


                                 Page 2 of 5
C/SCA/1131/2018                                 ORDER DATED: 22/04/2026




   “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 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 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


                             Page 3 of 5
     C/SCA/1131/2018                                ORDER DATED: 22/04/2026




        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.”



6.    Per      contra,   Mr.Nakhva,       learned    advocate        for      the
petitioner is unable to controvert the aforesaid facts. He
would not be in a position to distinguish facts from what is
held by the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid
decision. Nonetheless, Mr.Nakhva, learned advocate would
submit that there are still vacancies available on which the
petitioner can be accommodated and may be reinstated in
service.


7.    In view of the aforesaid facts and the binding decision of
the Division Bench of this Court, I do not find any merit in the
claim of the petitioner. Accordingly, no relief can be granted
in favour of the petitioner as prayed for.


8.    Before parting, it is observed that it is open for the
petitioner to make a suitable representation to the respondent
authority in regard to giving him a fresh appointment on an ad


                                 Page 4 of 5
       C/SCA/1131/2018                                                               ORDER DATED: 22/04/2026




hoc basis. The same may be decided by the concerned
respondent authority in accordance with law.


9.       It is made clear that no equity/right will be created in
favour of the petitioner in a case where his representation is
rejected.


10.      In view of the foregoing reasons, the present petition
deserves to be dismissed, which is hereby dismissed. Notice is
discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated. There shall
be no order as to costs.


                                                                             (MAULIK J. SHELAT, J)
GAURAV J THAKER

Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: GAURAVKUMAR JANARDANBHAI THAKER(HC00951), Principal Pvt. Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 22/04/2026 14:26:19




                                                       Page 5 of 5