Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Smita Hiren Gadhvi, was appointed as Adhyapak Sahayak by respondent No.3-institution. The appointment was forwarded to respondent No.2-Saurashtra University for approval. The University, by order dated 21.03.2023, refused to approve the appointment on the ground that the petitioner did not possess NET/SLET qualification. The petitioner challenged this order by way of a Special Civil Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus to quash the order and direct the University to sanction her post. The Court heard the learned advocates for the parties. The Court examined the relevant UGC Regulations, 2018 and the University's own ordinances. It found that the requirement of NET/SLET was not applicable to the post of Adhyapak Sahayak. The Court held that the University's action was arbitrary, illegal, and without authority. The Court quashed the order dated 21.03.2023 and directed the University to sanction the post of the petitioner as Adhyapak Sahayak forthwith. The Court also disposed of the connected civil applications.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Appointment - Approval - UGC Regulations, 2018 - The University refused to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Adhyapak Sahayak on the ground that she did not possess NET/SLET qualification. The Court held that the requirement of NET/SLET was not applicable to the post of Adhyapak Sahayak as per UGC Regulations, 2018 and the University's own ordinances, and the University's action was arbitrary and illegal. (Paras 1-19)
B) Constitutional Law - Article 226 - Writ of Mandamus - The Court held that the University's order dated 21.03.2023 was without authority and against the evidence on record, and directed the University to sanction the post of the petitioner as Adhyapak Sahayak forthwith. (Paras 9-19)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondent No.2-University could refuse to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Adhyapak Sahayak on the ground that the petitioner did not possess NET/SLET qualification, when such qualification was not a requirement under the relevant UGC Regulations or the University's own ordinances at the time of appointment.
Final Decision
The Court allowed the petition, quashed the order dated 21.03.2023 passed by respondent No.2-University, and directed the University to sanction the post of the petitioner as Adhyapak Sahayak forthwith. The connected civil applications were also disposed of.
Law Points
- UGC Regulations
- 2018
- Gujarat University Ordinances
- Approval of Appointment
- NET/SLET Qualification
- Arbitrariness
- Writ of Mandamus
Case Details
2026 LawText (GUJ) (01) 640
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7090 of 2023
Ms. Mamta R. Vyas, Mr. Shivang Thackar, Ms. Avani V. Patel, Mr. Meet A. Shah, Ms. Nalanda Acharya
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the University refusing to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Adhyapak Sahayak.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus quashing the order dated 21.03.2023 passed by respondent No.2-University and directing the University to sanction her post as Adhyapak Sahayak.
Filing Reason
The University refused to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Adhyapak Sahayak on the ground that she did not possess NET/SLET qualification.
Issues
Whether the University's refusal to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Adhyapak Sahayak on the ground of lack of NET/SLET qualification was valid.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus directing the University to sanction her post.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that the requirement of NET/SLET was not applicable to the post of Adhyapak Sahayak as per UGC Regulations, 2018 and the University's own ordinances.
The University contended that the petitioner did not possess NET/SLET qualification and therefore approval was rightly refused.
Ratio Decidendi
The requirement of NET/SLET qualification is not applicable to the post of Adhyapak Sahayak under the UGC Regulations, 2018 and the University's own ordinances. The University's refusal to approve the appointment on that ground was arbitrary and illegal, and the petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus directing the University to sanction her post.
Judgment Excerpts
By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs; ... to issue a writ of mandamus ... quashing and setting aside the order dated 21.03.2023 passed by the respondent No.2 ... holding the same as erroneous, illegal, without authority, against the evidence on record, arbitrary and high-handed and be further pleased to direct the respondent No.2 to sanction the post of the petitioner as Adhyapak Sahayak forthwith.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed Special Civil Application No. 7090 of 2023 challenging the order dated 21.03.2023. The Court heard the matter with connected Civil Application (For Direction) No. 1 of 2024 and Civil Application (For Vacating Stay) No. 1 of 2025. The Court disposed of all matters by this common oral judgment.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
