{"id":224545,"date":"2008-08-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-08-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-vs-gujarat-on-12-august-2008"},"modified":"2017-08-22T15:41:00","modified_gmt":"2017-08-22T10:11:00","slug":"dr-vs-gujarat-on-12-august-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-vs-gujarat-on-12-august-2008","title":{"rendered":"Dr vs Gujarat on 12 August, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Dr vs Gujarat on 12 August, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: Rajesh H.Shukla,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/832520\/2008\t 19\/ 19\tORDER\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8325 OF 2008\n \n\n======================================\n \n\nDR.\nLOKENDRA MALIK - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nGUJARAT\nNATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY & ORS. - Respondent(s)\n \n\n======================================Appearance\n: \nMr. Dipak R. Dave for\nPetitioner(s). \nMs. Dharmishta Rawal for Respondent(s) : 1. \nMr.\nNiraj Soni, AGP for the respondent-State.\n \n\nNone\nfor Respondent(s) : 2 - 14. \n======================================\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 12\/08\/2008 \n\n \n\n \nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n
\t\tThe
\npresent petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226
\nof the Constitution of India for the prayers, inter alia, to
\nquash and set aside the decisions dated 30th May, 2008 of
\nrespondent No.1 and 16th May, 2008 of the Executive
\nCouncil of respondent No.1. It is also  prayed to direct respondent
\nNo.1 to continue the petitioner in service as Assistant Professor of
\nLaw with continuity of service and all consequential benefits, etc.
\nIt is further prayed to hold and declare that respondent Nos.3 to 14
\nare not possessing necessary qualification as per the Rules of
\nUniversity Grants Commission and since their appointments are
\nillegal, they have no authority to continue on the post.\n<\/p>\n
2.\t\tThe
\nfacts of the case briefly summarised are that the petitioner had been
\nserving as an Assistant Professor of Law, who has been discontinued
\nfrom the Gujarat National Law University ( GNLU  for short) by
\nthe impugned order dated 30th May, 2008 passed by
\nrespondent No.1, which has been challenged herein on the ground that
\nit is arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner has also challenged the
\nappointments of respondent Nos.3 to 14 as absolutely illegal and in
\nflagrant violation of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956
\n( UGC  Act  for short) and the Rules and Regulations under the
\nsaid Act. The petitioner had been appointed as an Assistant Professor
\nof Law by GNLU, which is established under the Gujarat National Law
\nUniversity Act, 2003. The petitioner, who had applied for the post of
\nAssistant Professor of Law pursuant to the advertisement at
\nAnnexure-B, was called for the interview and he was interviewed on
\n20th January, 2008 by the Selection Committee of
\nrespondent No.1. The petitioner was thereafter offered the
\nappointment letter dated 27th January, 2008 (Annexure-C),
\nappointing him to the post of Assistant Professor of Law. Thereafter,
\nhe joined the services with respondent No.1 with effect from 3rd
\nFebruary, 2008.\n<\/p>\n
3.\t\tIt
\nis the case of the petitioner that as he was popular amongst the
\nstudents which the respondents did not like and since they did not
\nwant the petitioner to overshadow them in teaching, respondent No.6,
\nwho was also appointed along with the petitioner, as an Assistant
\nProfessor of Law, started causing harassment to the petitioner. It is
\nalso averred that though he had informed to respondent No.3 about the
\nsame, no action was taken. It is also contended that he came to know
\nthat respondent No.6 is not qualified and eligible for the post of
\nAssistant Professor of Law as per the UGC norms. He, therefore,
\napplied for the information under the Right to Information Act, 2005
\non 18th April, 2008, which annoyed respondent No.6.
\nTherefore, at the instance of respondent No.6, as he instigated
\ncertain students to file false complaints against the petitioner, few
\ngirl students filed a complaint against the petitioner on the last
\ndate of examination, i.e. on 2nd May, 2008. It is averred
\nthat the Committee constituted to investigate the said complaint
\nfound the allegations vague and false as per the information
\navailable to the petitioner. The petitioner was called and explained
\neverything before the Committee and thereafter, the complaint has
\nbeen filed. It is averred that respondent No.3 was also not holding
\nthe qualification and eligibility for the post of Associate Professor
\nof Law at the time when he applied for the post and therefore, the
\npetitioner had sought for information under the Right to Information
\nAct, 2005. Thereafter, the petitioner was provided with the details
\non 10th June, 2008 (Annexure-E). It is, therefore,
\ncontended that neither respondent No.3 nor respondent No.6 were
\nholding necessary eligibility and qualification for being appointed
\nto the post and therefore, they joined the hands together and
\nharassed the petitioner and they tried to pressurise the petitioner
\nfor giving the resignation from the services. However, as the
\npetitioner started fighting calling for the further information under
\nthe RTI Act, he has been victimised. It is also contended that as
\nregards the qualification of respondent No.6, he has also made
\nrepresentation to the Honourable Visitor, who is the Honourable the
\nChief Justice of India, on 12th May, 2008, which is at
\nAnnexure-G. However, it is contended that instead of taking the
\naction against respondent No.6, the petitioner has been victimised.
\nIt has been specifically contended that the Executive Council of
\nrespondent No.1 in its meeting dated 16th May, 2008
\ndecided to discontinue the services of the petitioner with immediate
\neffect without showing any reason, which is at Annexure-H. It is,
\ntherefore, contended that the petitioner was not even heard before
\npassing such resolution and no reasons were given for taking such
\ndecision by the Executive Council. It has been contended that the
\npetitioner has been victimised at the instance of respondent Nos.3
\nand 6 and the petitioner, who is having good academic record, has
\nbeen discriminated and the Executive Council  of respondent No.1 has
\nadopted pick and choose policy and the decision has been taken at the
\ninstance of respondent Nos.3 and 6. Further, the averments are also
\nmade in paragraph 2.16 that representations made by him to the
\nHonourable the Chief Justice of India and Honourable Mr. Justice C.
\nK. Thakkar, who is a Member of General Council, GNLU, have not been
\nconsidered and the same are produced at Annexures I and J. It is also
\ncontended that the Executive Council has itself taken the arbitrary
\ndecision at the instance of respondent Nos.3 and 6 and has given
\npremium to the ineligible persons. Thus, the present petition has
\nbeen filed challenging the decision to discontinue the petitioner as
\nwell as to question the appointments of respondent Nos.3 to 14 on
\nvarious grounds stated in the petition as well as submitted in detail
\nat the time of hearing of the petition.\n<\/p>\n
4.\t\tMr.\n<\/p>\n
Dipak Dave, learned Advocate for the petitioner, has submitted
\nreferring to the pleadings that the petitioner has been victimised at
\nthe hands of respondent Nos.3 and 6. He has referred to the petition
\nto point out that the respondents, who have been appointed, are not
\npossessing necessary qualification and in spite of that, they have
\nbeen continued whereas the petitioner, who is eligible and qualified,
\nhas been discontinued at the instance of respondent Nos.3 and 6. It
\nwas strenuously submitted that respondent Nos.3 and 6 have joined the
\nhands and at their instance, respondent No.1 has taken the decision
\nto discontinue the petitioner. He also submitted that at the instance
\nof respondent No.6, respondent No.3 has, during the meeting of the
\nExecutive Council, persuaded the Executive Council to take such a
\ndecision. It was submitted that what has transpired during the
\nmeeting, he would not have known, but, he apprehends that at the
\ninstance of respondent Nos.3 to 6, such a decision has been taken and
\nhe is victimised. Therefore, it was strenuously submitted that such a
\ndecision is arbitrary and it is taken by the Executive Council at the
\ninstance of respondent No.3, who is the Ex-Officio Member of the
\nExecutive Council. It has also been contended that before passing the
\nresolution of the Executive Council, no opportunity has been given to
\nthe petitioner and therefore, it is arbitrary, illegal and violative
\nof Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In support of this
\nsubmission, the learned Advocate has referred to and relied upon the
\njudgement of the Honourable Apex Court in the case of State of
\nOrissa vs. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Devi,<\/a> reported in AIR
\n1967 SC 1269 and emphasised that even the executive orders
\nare required to be supported by reasons, which have not been given in
\nthe impugned order. He also referred to a judgement of the Honourable
\nApex Court in the case of  National Textile Workers’ Union &
\nOrs. vs. P. R. Ramakrishnan & Ors.,<\/a> reported in (1983)
\n1 SCC 228 and submitted that if the order has any civil
\nconsequence, then, the reasons have to be given and also an
\nopportunity has to be given. He emphasised and submitted that in the
\nfacts of the present case, no reasons are given nor any opportunity
\nhas been given though the services of the petitioner are discontinued
\nor terminated and therefore, the impugned decision is arbitrary and
\nviolative of Article 14.\n<\/p>\n
4.1\t\tAs
\nthe Court had raised the query about locus standi of the
\npetitioner to question the appointments of respondents, referring to
\nthat aspect, he submitted that the respondent No.1-University is
\nestablished under the Gujarat National Law University Act, 2003  with
\nthe object of having excellence in the field of knowledge of law, law
\nreforms and therefore, the students and research scholars are trained
\nfor developing such skills, and since the appointments of respondent
\nNos.3 to 14 are given in utter disregard to the norms established by
\nthe UGC Act, he has challenged their appointments. Mr. Dave has
\nsubmitted that what avowed the objects with which the University has
\nbeen established and had been started and functioning with progress,
\nbut, the merit is compromised and facts are suppressed by respondent
\nNo.3 before the Executive Council, which has resulted in the impugned
\norder of discontinuation of the petitioner. He emphasised that the
\nExecutive Council may not have been presented with all the facts and
\nall the facts may not have been brought to the notice of the
\nExecutive Council. Therefore, he has challenged the appointments of
\nthe respondents. In support of this submission, he has referred to
\nand relied upon the judgement of the Honourable Apex Court in the
\ncase of Dr. (Mrs.) Meera Massey vs. Dr. S. R. Mehrotra &
\nOrs.,<\/a> reported in AIR 1998 SC 1153. He also
\nsubmitted that the rules and regulations of the University Grants
\nCommission are required to be followed and if that is taken into
\nconsideration, none of the respondents is eligible and qualified.
\nReferring to the eligibility criteria, Mr. Dave also referred to the
\njudgement of the Karnataka High Court at Bangalore in the case of
\nSachidananda K. & Ors. Vs. Bangalore University & Ors.,
\n in Writ Petition No.19399 of 2005 and the observations made therein,
\nfor which he also referred to the provisions of UGC Act. He
\nemphasised that in that case also, the appointment of the respondents
\ntherein in the Faculty of Law itself was questioned on the ground of
\nNational Eligibility Test for the Lecturership and also other
\nqualifications as per the UGC Act, which prescribes the minimum
\nqualification for the appointment to the post. He also pointedly
\nreferred to the excerpts from the University Grants Commission
\n(Minimum Qualification required for the Appointment and Career
\nAdvancement of Teachers in University and Institutions affiliated to
\nit) Regulations, 2000, which has been quoted and referred to in that
\njudgement for supporting his submissions. He also referred and relied
\nupon a judgement of the High Court of Rajasthan in the case of
\nKrishna C. Mathur vs. The University of Jodhpur and Ors.
\nin S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.160 of 1978.\n<\/p>\n
5.\t\tMs.\n<\/p>\n
Dharmistha Rawal, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent-GNLU,
\nhas submitted that the Court may consider in brief the submissions or
\npoints as formulated hereunder:\n<\/p>\n
(i)
\n\tThe petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of suppressio
\nveri and suggestio falsi.\n<\/p>\n
(ii)\tDisputed
\nquestions of facts.\n<\/p>\n
(iii)\tThe
\npetition is filed to settle the personal score.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tShe
\nalso pointedly referred to the averments made in the petition to
\nhighlight some of the allegations made qua respondent Nos.3
\nand 6 as well as respondent No.1 and also the Executive Council as
\nwell. She also referred to the letter of appointment dated 27th
\nJanuary, 2008 (Annexure-C) and submitted that as reflected in this
\nletter, the post is offered to the petitioner on probation initially
\nfor such period as may be determined by the Executive Council. She
\nemphasised that the appointment of the petitioner itself was subject
\nto the terms and conditions, which include certain specific clauses.
\nClause-5 of the appointment letter reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
 5.\tYour
\n employment with the University during probation may be terminated
\nwithout assigning any reasons  at one month’s notice or salary in
\nlieu thereof and you may also have a corresponding right to terminate
\nit at one month’s notice or on payment of salary in lieu thereof.
\nAfter probation, the termination period will be of three months.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tShe
\nalso submitted that as per the GNLU Act, the appointment is by the
\nExecutive Council and the powers are delegated to respondent No.1 by
\nthe Executive Council. For that purpose, she referred to the
\ncommunication dated 17th July, 2008, which is the
\ninformation provided under the Right to Information Act, as requested
\nby the petitioner, and more particularly, question No.2 has a
\nreference to the very aspect regarding the power and authority of the
\nDirector In-charge for the appointment, which reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
 Q.2\tThe
\npower and authority of the Director-In-Charge for the appointment of
\nteaching staff and whether the Director-In-Charge is having power to
\nissue the appointment orders without the approval of the Executive
\nCouncil? Kindly furnish the details.\n<\/p>\n
Ans.2
\n\t\tThe Director has the power and the authority for making the
\nappointments of the teaching staff as per:\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tGujarat National Law University Act, 2003 under section 22, the
\n\tpower is delegated.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tResolutions of the Statutory Bodies at their respective meetings.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tappointments so made are on the recommendations of the Selection
\n\tCommittee and are subject to the approval of the Executive Council.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tIt
\nis also clarified that the Executive Council guides the recruitment
\nof the faculty. Therefore, Ms. Rawal submitted that the appointment
\nis subject to the approval of the Executive Council as it has the
\npowers and authority to make the appointment, which powers are
\ndelegated to respondent No.1 subject to the approval by the Executive
\nCouncil on completing the process of the recruitment. Therefore, she
\nsubmitted that the submissions that he has been victimised at the
\ninstance of respondent Nos.3 and 6 are misconceived as it is the
\ndecision taken by the Executive Council and not any individual or
\nrespondent Nos.3 and 6. She also referred to constitution of the
\nExecutive Council which consists of the Honourable Visitor –
\nHonourable the Chief Justice of India and also the Honourable Judges
\nof the Supreme Court and High Court and other dignitaries. She also
\nreferred to the representation made by the petitioner dated 3rd
\nJune, 2008 (Annexure-I) and pointedly drawn the attention as to the
\nlanguage used and the manner in which the allegations are made. She
\nemphasised the following paragraph:\n<\/p>\n
 My
\nrepresentation to the Visitor – Honourable the Chief Justice of India
\ndated 12.5.2008 was retaliated by the decision stated to have been
\ntaken on 16.5.2008 by not approving my appointment, without
\ndisclosing which parameter, I am not meeting with.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tThereafter
\nalso, there are other allegations that  my representation is
\nagainst the decision of the Executive Council in not approving my
\nappointment and circumstances leading to such decision .\n<\/p>\n
5.1\t\tMs.\n<\/p>\n
Rawal also referred to and relied upon a judgement of the Honourable
\nApex Court in the case of Sadananda Halo & Ors. vs. Momtaz
\nAli Sheikh & Ors.,<\/a> reported in (2008) 4 SCC 619,
\nwherein the earlier judgement in the case of Union of India vs.
\nBikas Kuanar,<\/a> reported in (2006) 8 SCC 192 was
\nrelied upon and
\nin the said judgement it was observed that the
\nSelection Committee recommends selection of a person, the same cannot
\nbe presumed to have been done in a mechanical manner in absence of
\nany allegation of favouritism or bias. A presumption arises in regard
\nto the correctness of the official act. The party who makes any
\nallegation of bias or favouritism is required to prove the same. In
\nthe instant case, no such allegation was made. The selection process
\nwas not found to be vitiated. No illegality was brought to the
\nCourt’s notice. Therefore, Ms. Rawal submitted that as it was an
\noffer for the appointment on contract basis subject to the approval
\nof the Executive Council, the petitioner cannot make a grievance if
\nhe is terminated simplicitor. It was submitted that there is no
\nquestion of giving any opportunity of hearing. She also referred to
\nthe pleadings and submitted that admittedly, there were some
\ncomplaints made by the girl students about the conduct of the
\npetitioner, for which the Committee was formed. However, to avoid any
\nfurther consequences, the Executive Council, on the basis of the
\nmaterial, has decided to discontinue the services by passing the
\nimpugned resolution, which cannot be said to be arbitrary. She,
\ntherefore, submitted that the submissions made by the petitioner are
\nmisconceived. She also submitted that the petitioner has no locus
\nstandi to question the appointment of others and in support of
\nthis submission, she has, referring to and relying upon the judgement
\nof the Honourable Apex Court in the case of Sadananda Halo
\n(supra), pointed out the observations in paragraph 59 that  it
\nis also a settled position that the unsuccessful candidates cannot
\nturn back and assail the selection process. There are of course
\nexceptions carved out by this Court to this general rule.
\nTherefore, referring to these observations and also similar
\nobservations made in the judgement in the case of Trivedi
\nHimanshu Ghanshyambhai vs. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation &
\nOrs.,<\/a> reported in (2007) 8 SCC 644, wherein
\nalso, observations  have been made with regard to locus standi
\nto challenge the appointments of others on the ground that they did
\nnot have requisite experience or qualification. Similarly, she has
\nalso referred and relied upon the judgement of the Honourable Apex
\nCourt in the case of B. Srinivasa Reddy vs. Karnataka Urban
\nWater Supply & Drainage Board Employees’ Assn. & Ors.,<\/a>
\nreported in (2006) 11 SCC 731 and submitted that one is
\nrequired to have reference to the nature of the appointment in the
\norganisation and therefore, the present petition may be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
6.\t\tIn
\nview of the rival submissions, it is required to be considered that
\nwhether the impugned decision of discontinuation of the services of
\nthe petitioner by the Executive Council by the impugned resolution
\ndated 16th May, 2008 can be said to be arbitrary and
\nviolative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. For
\nappreciating the submissions, few admitted facts are required to be
\nconsidered. It is not in dispute that the Executive Council is having
\nabsolute authority or power to make the appointments and for the
\npurpose of recruitment process, the powers are delegated to
\nrespondent No.1, but, the appointments shall be subject to the
\napproval of the Executive Council. The petitioner, who had applied,
\npursuant to the advertisement, was selected and offered an
\nappointment as an Assistant Professor of law as per the appointment
\nletter dated 27th January, 2008 subject to the terms and
\nconditions. As highlighted and pointed out, Clause (5) makes it clear
\nthat the services could be terminated without assigning any reasons
\nat one month s notice or salary in lieu thereof and the incumbent
\nlike the petitioner had also a corresponding right to leave with one
\nmonth s notice or on payment of salary in lieu thereof. After the
\nappointment of the petitioner in January-2008 and as reflected,
\nadmittedly, in the petition as well as in the representation made by
\nthe petitioner at Annexure-I, there were some complaints by the girl
\nstudents, for which, admittedly, a committee was formed and on the
\nbasis thereof, the Executive Council has ultimately taken the
\ndecision to discontinue the petitioner after the academic term by the
\nimpugned resolution at Annexure-A. Therefore, the short point or
\nissue which is required to be focused is can it be termed that such
\ndecision taken by the Executive Council is arbitrary or violative of
\nArticle 14 of the Constitution of India. Though in the petition,
\naverments and allegations have been made with regard to bias or
\nprejudice by respondent Nos.3 and 6 inasmuch as initially, he seems
\nto have a quarrel with respondent No.6 and had questioned his
\neligibility by calling the information under the Right to Information
\nAct. Thereafter, the petitioner has again questioned the eligibility
\nand qualification of respondent No.3 by seeking the information under
\nthe Right to Information Act. Thereafter, the allegations are made
\nthat he has been victimised at the instance of respondent Nos.3 and
\n6, the decision is taken admittedly by the Executive Council and
\ntherefore, he has made the allegations that respondent No.3 had
\neither misinformed or not put the facts properly before the Executive
\nCouncil, resulting in the impugned decision. In other words, it also
\nimputes that the Executive Council has also arbitrarily  taken the
\ndecision and it has been specifically averred so, as discussed above,
\nin paragraph 2.18 that the Executive Council has taken arbitrary
\ndecision at the instance of respondent Nos.3 to 6 without giving any
\nopportunity. The Executive Council, as discussed above, is comprising
\nof various dignitaries, namely, Honourable Visitor – Honourable the
\nChief Justice of India, who is the patron in chief of the institute,
\nand Honourable Judges of the Supreme Court and High Court and others,
\nwho are the members of the Executive Council. One fails to understand
\nhow respondent No.3 can veil the power or authority over all the
\nmembers of the Executive Council so that the Executive Council is
\ncarried away at the instance of respondent No.3. Therefore, merely by
\nmaking the allegations, the action does not become arbitrary or
\nviolative of Article 14. The Honourable Apex Court has observed in
\nits judgement in the case of Sadananda Halo & Ors.
\n(supra) that the allegations are required to be proved or at
\nleast prima facie established.\n<\/p>\n
7.\t\tThough
\nmuch emphasis was given on the aspect of reasons having been not
\ngiven or no opportunity has been given to the petitioner, the same is
\nalso without any merit. It is evident that Clause 5 of the
\nappointment letter itself makes it clear that the appointment is
\nsubject to the approval of the Executive Council. It further makes it
\nvery clear that the services could be discontinued by one month’s
\nnotice, as pointed out by the learned Counsel, Ms. Rawal, on the
\nbasis of the communication, which was addressed in response to the
\ninformation sought for by the petitioner himself regarding the power
\nand authority.  Question No.2 and answer thereto makes it very clear
\nthat such authority or power rests with the Executive Council. It is,
\nin these circumstances, that the question of giving an opportunity to
\nthe petitioner while discontinuing the services does not arise. At
\nthis juncture, the observations made by the Honourable Apex Court in
\nits judgement in the case of A.M.S. Sushanth vs. M. Sujatha,
\nreported in (2000) 10 SCC 197 are required to be
\nappreciated. The Court has observed as under:\n<\/p>\n
 Natural
\njustice has been variously defined. It is another name for common
\nsense justice. Rules of natural justice are not codified canons. But
\nthey are principles ingrained into the conscience of mind. Natural
\njustice is the administration of justice in a common sense liberal
\nway. Justice is based substantially on natural ideals and human
\nvalues. The administration of justice is to be freed from the narrow
\nand restricted considerations which are usually associated with
\nformulated law involving linguistic technicalities and grammatical
\nniceties. It is the substance of justice which has to determine its
\nform. Principles of natural justice are those rules which have been
\nlaid down by the courts as being the minimum protection of the rights
\nof the individual against the arbitrary procedure that may be adopted
\nby a judicial, quasi- judicial and administrative authority while
\nmaking an order affecting those rights. These rules are intended to
\nprevent such authority from doing injustice.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tMoreover,
\na useful reference can be had to the observations made by the Apex
\nCourt in its judgement in the case of Ajit Kumar Nag vs.
\nGeneral Manager (PJ), Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Haldia & Ors.,<\/a>
\nreported in (2005) 7 SCC 764, wherein
\nthe Honourable Apex Court has observed thus:\n<\/p>\n
 The
\nprinciples of natural justice are not rigid or immutable and hence
\nthey cannot be imprisoned in a straight-jacket. They must yield to
\nand change with exigencies of situations. They must be confined
\nwithin their limits and cannot be allowed to run wild. While
\ninterpreting legal provisions, a court of law cannot be unmindful of
\nthe hard realities of life. The approach of the Court in dealing with
\nsuch cases should be pragmatic rather than pedantic, realistic rather
\nthan doctrinaire, functional rather than formal and practical rather
\nthan ‘precedential’.\n<\/p>\n
8.\t\tIt
\nis also well settled that for determining as to whether the decision
\nis arbitrary or illegal, one is required to have reference to the
\ndecision making process, which would be relevant material. In the
\nfacts of the present case, the decision has been taken by the
\nExecutive Council on the basis of the material. Therefore, it is the
\ndecision based on the material having been considered objectively by
\na collective body like the Executive Council. It is in these
\ncircumstances that the submissions about the victimisation are
\nrequired to be appreciated and considered. As observed by the
\nHonourable Apex Court in the case of B. Srinivasa Reddy
\n(supra), the burden of establishing the mala fides is
\nvery heavy on the person who alleges it. The allegations of mala
\nfides are often more easily made than proved and the very
\nseriousness of such allegations demands proof of a higher order of
\ncredibility. Therefore, when the allegations are made that even the
\nExecutive Council has taken the decision at the behest and at the
\ninstance of respondent Nos.3 and 6, the allegations by mere words
\nwould not be sufficient and the petitioner who is otherwise well
\nversed in law cannot be permitted to have such allegations without
\nany material in support thereof.\n<\/p>\n
9.\t\tAs
\nthe appointment order itself, as stated above, clearly suggests that
\nit is a tenure appointment subject to the approval by the Executive
\nCouncil and if the Executive Council has not found it fit or
\ndesirable to approve the appointment itself by the impugned decision,
\nit cannot be said that it is arbitrary or violative of rules of
\nnatural justice. If the appointment itself is according to the clause
\nin the appointment order which clearly suggests about bilateral or
\nmutual rights to terminate or discontinue the services, which would
\nbe again subject to the approval by the Executive Council, and the
\nExecutive Council has not approved the appointment itself and decided
\nto discontinue the services, the same cannot be said to be arbitrary.
\n There is no question of violation of the rules of natural justice or
\nhaving not passed any reasoned order inasmuch as it is not punitive
\nand it is simply non-approval of the appointment based on the
\nmaterial before the Executive Council, deciding about the suitability
\nof the candidate like the petitioner. Therefore, as reflected in the
\nappointment letter itself, reserving the right to discontinue during
\nthe probation, on one month s notice to either side, cannot be
\nconstrued in a manner that even such appointment has to be continued
\nper force, which in turn frustrates the said very clause in the
\nappointment or agreement. Therefore, the petitioner, having accepted
\nthe appointment, cannot approbate and reprobate, that he would accept
\nthe order or appointment, but, wants to ignore the relevant clause.\n<\/p>\n
10.\t\tAs
\nregards the aspect of locus standi, though the learned
\nAdvocate for the petitioner has referred to the judgement of the High
\nCourt of Karnataka with regard to the appointment of Faculty of Law
\nquestioned by the petitioner, it is, however, to be considered in the
\nbackground of the facts and circumstances and it will not have any
\napplication qua the facts of the present case because, as
\nobserved in the judgement of the Honourable Court which has been
\nreferred to by the learned Counsel Ms. Raval reported in B.
\nSrinivas Reddy (supra)  that it cannot be challenged
\nby the person like the petitioner to redress his personal grievance.\n<\/p>\n
11.\t\tIn
\nview of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the opinion that
\nthe present petition deserves to be dismissed in limine. Hence, the
\nsame is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
[Rajesh
\nH. Shukla, J.]<\/p>\n
kamlesh*\t<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Dr vs Gujarat on 12 August, 2008 Author: Rajesh H.Shukla,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/832520\/2008 19\/ 19 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8325 OF 2008 ====================================== DR. LOKENDRA MALIK – Petitioner(s) Versus GUJARAT NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY & ORS. – Respondent(s) ======================================Appearance […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-224545","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nDr vs Gujarat on 12 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-vs-gujarat-on-12-august-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dr vs Gujarat on 12 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-vs-gujarat-on-12-august-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-08-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-08-22T10:11:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"23 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-vs-gujarat-on-12-august-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-vs-gujarat-on-12-august-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dr vs Gujarat on 12 August, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-22T10:11:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-vs-gujarat-on-12-august-2008\"},\"wordCount\":4594,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-vs-gujarat-on-12-august-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-vs-gujarat-on-12-august-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-vs-gujarat-on-12-august-2008\",\"name\":\"Dr vs Gujarat on 12 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-22T10:11:00+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-vs-gujarat-on-12-august-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-vs-gujarat-on-12-august-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-vs-gujarat-on-12-august-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dr vs Gujarat on 12 August, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Dr vs Gujarat on 12 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-vs-gujarat-on-12-august-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dr vs Gujarat on 12 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-vs-gujarat-on-12-august-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-08-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-08-22T10:11:00+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"23 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-vs-gujarat-on-12-august-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-vs-gujarat-on-12-august-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dr vs Gujarat on 12 August, 2008","datePublished":"2008-08-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-22T10:11:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-vs-gujarat-on-12-august-2008"},"wordCount":4594,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-vs-gujarat-on-12-august-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-vs-gujarat-on-12-august-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-vs-gujarat-on-12-august-2008","name":"Dr vs Gujarat on 12 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-08-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-22T10:11:00+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-vs-gujarat-on-12-august-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-vs-gujarat-on-12-august-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-vs-gujarat-on-12-august-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dr vs Gujarat on 12 August, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/224545","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=224545"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/224545\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=224545"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=224545"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=224545"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}