Case: AYURVED VIKAS MANDAL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

2. The appellant is before this Court, aggrieved by the Judgment dated 02.05.2016 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Letters Patent Appeal No. 125 of 2016 in Civil Application No. 13039 of 2015. The issue pertains to absorption of 23 members of the staff of the 2nd respondent-institution. After hearing the learned counsel for some time, this court passed the following order on 31.07.2017 :-The issue raised in these two petitions pertains to the fate of 23 teachers who had been working in an aided college.In 2012, it appears, there was a decision to convert the college to self-financing.According to the learned counsel for the State, the condition was that the employees of the institution should be continued as such and only on that condition the permission was granted.According to the employees, they have not been continued in the institution nor have they been absorbed in Government service, as directed by the High Court.Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that in case the direction of the High Court is implemented that will set a wrong precedent and it will also affect the chances of direct recruits.However, it is pointed out that in similar cases, the Government had agreed for absorption of such employees.Be that as it may, we direct the State Government to get instruction as to whether the State would be in a position to absorb these 23 employees without the judgment being treated as a precedent.List on 18.08.2017.

Court's reasoning:
5. Having heard Mr. Preetesh Kapoor, learned counsel appearing for the State, we find it difficult to appreciate the contentions advanced by him. True, the second respondent institution was a grant-in-aid college. However, it is on the request of the Management that the Government agreed to convert it into a self financing college, subject to certain conditions.6. In that background, we are of the view that this case needs to be disposed of in terms of the affidavit, as extracted above, making it further clear that this Judgment is passed in the very peculiar facts of this case and the same shall not be treated as a precedent.