IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 11285 of 1994 For Approval and Signature: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT S DAVE ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the concerned : NO Magistrate/Magistrates,Judge/Judges,Tribunal/Tribunals? -------------------------------------------------------------- AUNPKUMAR R AVASTHI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: 1. Special Civil Application No. 11285 of 1994 MR RK MISHRA for Petitioner No. 1 Mrs. Manisha L. Shah AGP for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 MR DA BAMBHANIA for Respondent No. 3 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT S DAVE Date of decision: 20/10/2004 ORAL JUDGEMENT 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is filed by the petitioner to seek protection of this Court on the ground that the petitioner is discharging his duties as a Lecturer in Civil Engineering, and, by common order of selection and appointment vide Notification dated 22nd October 1991, the petitioner was appointed and he joined the duty on 23rd October 1991. It is the case of the petitioner that there was an advertisement for 70 posts and only 51 candidates were selected by the Gujarat Public Service Commission and 19 clear posts were vacant. According to the petitioner, when his services came to be terminated by order dated 16th September 1994, there were 9 posts available with the respondent-Polytechnic. Therefore, he should be continued in service till regularly selected candidate of GPSC is available. 2. Affidavit-in-reply is filed by the respondents-Authorities contending that the petitioner continues in service by virtue of the interim order passed by this Court on 30th September 1994 whereby it is ordered that the petitioner shall be allowed to continue in service as he was continuing prior to 16th September 1994, meaning thereby, the service of the petitioner is protected by this Court pending the petition. 3. The learned advocate for the petitioner has, relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of K.D. Vohra vs. Kamleshbhai Gobarbhai Patel, reported in 2003(2) GLR 1343, and submitted that the subject matter of the petition is already decided and those petitions were rejected. However, in the said judgment also, looking to the length of service of Lecturer rendered as ad-hoc employee, they were allowed to be treated as a separate group. 4. It is further submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that, in view of the increased strength of engineering colleges in the State of Gujarat, still there is dearth of qualified teachers in the engineering faculties and the service of the petitioner may be continued till regularly selected candidate of GPSC is available. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to serve as Lecture purely on adhoc basis till regularly selected candidate of GPSC is available. The moment such candidate of GPSC is available, appropriate orders will be passed in view of the judgment passed by the Division Bench in the case K.D. Vohra (supra). No further right will be available to the petitioner except as observed by the Division Bench in the aforesaid judgment. 6. With the aforesaid observations and directions, Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. (Anant S. Dave, J.) (swamy)