Holding

The Court held that, following earlier judgments, the State must consider the petitioner's claim and absorb him in an equivalent post within the stipulated period, thereby partly allowing the petition.

Summary

Ms Nidhi Vyas, a contract Steno‑cum‑Computer Operator appointed by a grant‑in‑aid institution (respondent No.4), was regularised in 2014 but later declared surplus when her post was abolished and her salary stopped. She filed a petition under Articles 14, 16 and 226 of the Constitution seeking the State to enforce earlier orders, transfer her to another ITI, and pay her pending salary. The Court observed that the facts are identical to earlier coordinate‑bench decisions (Special Civil Applications No.14225/2017 and No.15435/2024) which directed absorption of similarly situated surplus employees. No new material was presented, so the Court followed those precedents and ordered the State to decide the claim within 60 days and to absorb the petitioner in an equivalent vacancy. The petition was therefore partly allowed, with the State directed to act in accordance with the earlier judgments.

Issues considered

Whether the State is constitutionally bound under Articles 14 and 16 to absorb the petitioner in another ITI despite the abolition of his post.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to payment of salary arrears and benefits pending the absorption.
Whether the State must comply with the earlier court orders dated 27.01.2014, 12.02.2014, 28.04.2016 and 06.01.2016.

Subjects

Article 14Article 16Article 226absorption of surplus employeesindustrial training institutesalary arrearstransferpublic serviceconstitutional lawGujarat

Judgment

C/SCA/14889/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/04/2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14889 of 2016

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT

=============================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
=============================================
BHAVINBHAI MAHENDRABHAI VYAS
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
=============================================
Appearance:
MR MANAN K PANERI(7959) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS NIDHI VYAS, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR RV DESHMUKH(300) for the Respondent(s) No. 4
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
=============================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT

Date : 27/04/2026
JUDGMENT

1. Heard Mr.Manan K. Paneri, learned advocate for the
petitioner, Ms.Nidhi Vyas, learned AGP for the respondent
State and Mr.R.V.Deshmukh, learned advocate for respondent
No.4.

2. The present petition is 昀椀led under Articles 14, 16 and
226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs :

“(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue an
appropriate writ, order or direction, directing respondents
no. 1 and 2 to take appropriate action against the
respondent no.4 for not complying with the orders dated
27.01.2014, 12.02.2014, 28.04.2016 as well as the order

Page 1 of 7
C/SCA/14889/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/04/2026

dated 06.01.2016 passed by this Hon'ble Court in Special
Civil Application no. 20760 of 2015, in the interest of
justice;

(B) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue an
appropriate writ, order or direction, directing respondent
authorities, more particularly, respondents no.1, 2 and 3 to
pass appropriate orders of transfer of the petitioner from
respondent no.4 to any other appropriate nearby place
pursuant to the order dated 27.01.2014, in the interest of
justice.

(C) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue an
appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the
respondent authorities to pay the salary due and payable
to the petitioner pursuant to the appointment order dated
03.03.2014 and also to pay the arrears without further
delay or within such time limit as may be deemed 昀椀t, just
and proper by this Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice;

(D) Pending admission hearing and till 昀椀nal disposal of this
petition, YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to direct the
respondent authorities to transfer and post the petitioner
to any other nearby place from the post on which the
petitioner was posted i.e. Joshipura, for the purpose of
performing his service apropos the order dated
27.01.2014, in the interest of justice;”

3. As such, the issue germane in the matter is squarely
covered by the decisions of the Coordinate Benches of this
Court dated 26.12.2019 passed in Special Civil
Application No.14225 of 2017 and allied matters as well
as dated 26.09.2025 passed in Special Civil Application
Nos.15435 of 2024 and allied matters and after hearing
the learned advocates for the respective parties, I am also of
the considered view that the directions issued in the aforesaid
decisions can be issued in this matter.

4. Before passing such order, the brief facts of the case
needs to be referred to which are as under.

Page 2 of 7
C/SCA/14889/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/04/2026

4.1 The petitioner was appointed with respondent No.4
which is a grant-in-aid institution as a Steno-cum-Computer
Operator on 01.08.2005 on contractual basis. The contract of
the petitioner was renewed from time to time. As per the
Circular dated 06.06.2000 issued by respondent No.1,
respondent No.4 requested respondent No.2 to regularize the
services of the petitioner. Thereafter, it appears that the
contract of the petitioner was not renewed from 28.02.2010,
but he was allowed to continue in service with hope that his
services will be regularized. Eventually, the services of the
petitioner came to be regularized by respondent No.1 – State
vide its Resolution dated 27.01.2014 and necessary order in
this regard was passed on 12.02.2014. Accordingly, the
petitioner was put in the regular pay-scale of Rs.4500-7000/-
and by giving bene昀椀t of 6 th Pay Commission, he was put in the
pay-scale of Rs.5200-20200/-, which was given w.e.f.
21.07.2007.

4.2 Thereafter, the post on which the petitioner was serving
got abolished and he became surplus in the institute and upon
not receiving any grant, respondent No.4 stopped paying any
salary to the petitioner. It is a stance of the respondent that
there is no policy of the State to accommodate the petitioner
in any other I.T.I. and/or institution. Hence, the petitioner has
approached this Court by way of this petition.

5. At the outset, I have observed that the issue germane to
this matter is squarely covered by the above referred
decisions passed by the Coordinate Benches of this Court,

Page 3 of 7
C/SCA/14889/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/04/2026

even after hearing the learned advocates for the respective
parties, there are no new facts brought to the notice of this
Court whereby any di昀昀erent view can be taken by this Court
than already taken by the Coordinate Bench of this Court.

6. Since the 昀椀rst decision was passed by the Coordinate
Bench of this Court (Coram: Hon’ble Mr.Justice N.V.Anjaria,
as His Lordship then were) dated 26.12.2019 in Special
Civil Application No.14225 of 2017, referred to in the
subsequent decision dated 26.09.2025 passed in Special
Civil Application No.15435 of 2024 and allied matters, I
would like to refer few passages of the subsequent decision,
which reads thus :

“2. By way of these petitions, the petitioners inter alia
raise a grievance as regards the petitioners not being
absorbed in other Industrial Training Institutions (ITIs), in
spite of vacancies available, upon being declared surplus,
more particularly on the ground that the State does not
have any policy of absorbing surplus employees of such
nature.
3. It would appear in this regard that interim orders had
been passed by this Court in Special Civil Applications No.
9990/2025, 9992/2025, 10439/2025 and 11265/2025 and
whereas, pursuant to the interim order, it has been
informed by learned AGP that a proposal has been sent by
the concerned department for absorbing the petitioners in
other ITIs where vacancies in the subject in which the
petitioners were instructors were available.

3.1. Insofar as the other petitions are concerned, this Court
had also called upon the learned AGP to get instructions as
regards available vacancies in other ITIs more particularly
as co-relatable with the subjects in which the petitioners
were instructors or in non-teaching posts and whereas,
today, learned AGP has tendered a list of 21 category of
teaching and non-teaching vacancies and whereas,
considering the same, it would appear that all the
petitioners of these petitions could be accommodated in
ITIs where vacancies of the nature of work the petitioners
were doing, are available.

Page 4 of 7
C/SCA/14889/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/04/2026

4. At this stage, this Court seeks to rely upon observations
made by learned Coordinate Bench of this Court (Coram:
Mr. N.V. Anjaria, J. as His Lordship then were) in Special
Civil Application No. 14225/2017 vide judgment dated
26.12.2019 whereby the learned Coordinate Bench had
directed absorption of the petitioners therein on equivalent
posts in other ITIs. Paragraphs No. 13 and 14 of the said
decision being relevant for the present purpose, are
reproduced hereinbelow for bene昀椀t:—

“13. From the above facts, it could be seen that similarly
placed employees who were once declared surplus,
came to be absorbed in the di昀昀erent institutes or
industrial centers. The petitioners have also given
details of the various centers where the vacancies are
stated to be available. The mandate of Article 14 of the
Constitution requires that the persons belonging to
homogenous class shall be meted out similar treatment.
The present petitioners, are therefore required to be
treated in the same manner in the matter of absorption
as the similarly situated surplus employees named in
the foregoing paragraphs have been treated. The action
on part of the respondents in not absorbing the
petitioners even though the absorption is possible on the
available vacancies, would tantamount to breach of
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

14. In view of the above discussion, the petitioners of all
the petitions except those already retired as mentioned
above, would deserve the relief. Accordingly, all the
petitions are disposed of by directing that the case of all
the petitioners for absorption shall be considered
positively keeping in view that similarly situated surplus
employees have been absorbed in the di昀昀erent
Industrial Training Institutes. The petitioners shall be
entitled to be treated in similar way. The order for them
shall be issued by the authorities to absorb them on the
vacancies as may be available, within six weeks from
the date of receipt of the present.”

5. Having regard to the observations of the learned
Coordinate Bench and whereas, since it appears that the
said decision is still a good law and also having regard to
the chart tendered across the bar by learned AGP, while it
would appear that the petitioners would be entitled for
claiming absorption on vacancies as available for
equivalent posts in ITIs, it would also appear to this Court
that as such, there are vacancies available in equivalent
post in other ITIs, under such circumstances, to this Court,
it would appear that nothing further is required to be done
except directing the State to take appropriate steps to

Page 5 of 7
C/SCA/14889/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/04/2026

ensure that the petitioners, except those petitioners in
whose case proposal has already been sent by the State,
are absorbed in equivalent vacancies within a period of 10
weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
5.1. In cases of such petitioners where the proposal has
already been sent by the State, the appointment shall be
ensured by the State within a period of 08 weeks from the
date of receipt of this order.

*** *** ***
5.3. Furthermore, the petitioners, while they would be
entitled for continuity of service, they would not be entitled
for salary in the interregnum and whereas, the same shall
be treated as notional.
*** *** ***
6.1. The State is directed to look into the above issue and
take an appropriate decision within a period of 60 days
from the date of receipt of this order and whereas, the
State shall also take into consideration the fact that most
of the petitioners referred to hereinabove were under the
protection of this Court and the claim of the petitioners is
as regards the salary not being paid for the period before
the petitioners were relieved or the petitioners having been
relieved even though they were protected by the order of
this Court.

6.2. In case the decision taken by the State is against the
interest of the petitioners, it would be open for the
petitioners to agitate the same before appropriate forum in
accordance with law.”
(emphasis supplied)

6. Ms.Vyas, learned AGP would submit that the department
concerned has already forwarded the proposal of the
petitioner vide its communication dated 23.01.2020 and due
to some query raised by the respondent-State, it is pending till
date.

7. Be that as it may, when the Coordinate Benches of this
Court in similar set of facts and circumstances like the
present one passed the aforesaid orders, on similar line, this
Court would like to issue directions to the State.

Page 6 of 7
C/SCA/14889/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/04/2026

8. Hence, I pass the following order :

8.1 The respondent – State is directed to decide the claim of
the petitioner /pending proposal within a period of 60 days
from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

8.2 While deciding the case of the petitioner, the Competent
Authority is directed to take into account the directions issued
by this Court in its decisions dated 26.12.2019 and
26.09.2025 as referred to hereinabove.

8.3 It goes without saying that in a case where any adverse
decision will be taken by the State against the interest of the
petitioner, it would be open for the petitioner to agitate the
same before the appropriate forum, in accordance with law.

8.4 Before parting, it is hope and trust that the Competent
Authority will grant the bene昀椀ts as granted to the other
similarly situated persons like the petitioner.

9. With the aforesaid observations, directions and reasons,
the present petition is partly allowed. Rule is made absolute,
to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no order as to costs.

10. Direct service is permitted.

(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 27/04/2026 14:39:04

Page 7 of 7