KIRANBHAI M GANDHI - ADVOCATE (EC MEMBER & IN HIS PERSONAL vs RAMSINH H RAJPUT
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/SCA/11479/2012 (GJHC240418452012) JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11479 of 2012
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2016
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11479 of 2012
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR DIRECTION) NO. 2 of 2016
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11479 of 2012
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
KIRANBHAI M GANDHI - ADVOCATE (EC MEMBER & IN HIS PERSONAL &
ORS.
Versus
RAMSINH H RAJPUT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DG SHUKLA(1998) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6
MR. SHALIN MEHTA, SENIOR ADVOCATE with MS MILI BAXI for ADITI S
RAOL(8128) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
M/S RJ RAWAL ASSOC.(1987) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR MAULIN RAVAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE with MR GAURANG VAGHELA
for MR RAJESH R DEWAL(1024) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 3,4,5,6,7
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
Date : 18/09/2026
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950 by the petitioners praying for the
following reliefs:
“(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of
certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any
other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing
and setting aside the impugned Judgment and Order
dated 12.04.2012 – 03.05.2012 passed by the
Page 1 of 5
Uploaded by MUSKAN AJAY MENON(HC02359) on Sat Sep 19 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 19 15:39:54 IST 2026
C/SCA/11479/2012 (GJHC240418452012) JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2026
learned Tribunal in Application No.2 of 2009 at
Annexure ‘A’ herein as being unjust, illegal and
without authority in law.
(B) Pending hearing and final disposal of the present
petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to stay the
execution, implementation and operation of the
impugned Judgment and Order dated 12.04.2012 –
03.05.2012 passed by the learned Tribunal in
Application No.2 of 2009 at Annexure ‘A’ herein.
(C) An ex-parte ad interim relief in terms of
paragraphs 9(B) above may kindly be granted.
(D) Any other and further reliefs as this Hon’ble Court
may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the
case.”
3. Heard learned advocate Mr. D.G. Shukla for the petitioners,
appearing through hybrid-mode, learned Senior Advocate Mr.
Shalin Mehta assisted by learned advocate Ms. Mili Baxi for
respondent No. 1 and learned Senior Advocate Mr. Maulin Raval
assisted by learned advocate Mr. Gaurang Vaghela for respondent
No. 2. Though served, none appeared for respondent Nos. 3 – 7.
4. When the matter was taken up for final hearing, the attention
of the Court was drawn by learned Senior Advocate Mr. Maulin
Raval to the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
on 01.04.2016, particularly paragraph Nos. 2, 3 and 4, which are
reproduced hereunder:
“2. Pursuant to the order passed by the Tribunal,
the Registrar, who was ordered to be removed, has
been reinstated on the post. It appears that there is
one more writ application filed which is not on Board
Page 2 of 5
Uploaded by MUSKAN AJAY MENON(HC02359) on Sat Sep 19 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 19 15:39:54 IST 2026
C/SCA/11479/2012 (GJHC240418452012) JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2026
for a writ of quo warranto on the premise that the
Registrar does not possess the requisite
qualifications to hold the post. That petition will be
looked into independently. Mr. Shalin Mehta, the
learned senior advocate appearing for the
respondent in this matter made himself very clear
that he has no objection if the remarks made by the
Tribunal against the members of the then Executive
Council are expunged. He also made himself very
clear that he has no objection if the order of costs
imposed upon each of the petitioners is also ordered
to be quashed. He only seeks clarification that
expunging of such remark would not come in his way
so far as the order of reinstatement and backwages
is concerned.
3. Prima facie, I am of the view that since the
petitioners, who at one point of time, were the
members of the Executive Council and are no longer
today in the office, they should be more concerned
about the strictures passed by the Tribunal, and if
such strictures are expunged, then probably, they
may not have any further grievance in the matter.
4. Mr. Shukla, the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners prays for some time in the matter to
have a word with his clients in this regard.”
5. It appears from the petition that the petitioners are aggrieved
by the strictures passed against the members of the Executive
Council. The petitioners also appear to be aggrieved by the
imposition of costs of Rs.1,500/- upon each of the petitioners,
payable to the respondent – employees.
6. At this juncture, learned advocate Mr. D.G. Shukla for the
petitioners submits that the petitioners would be satisfied if the
remarks made in the impugned order dated 12.04.2012 –
Page 3 of 5
Uploaded by MUSKAN AJAY MENON(HC02359) on Sat Sep 19 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 19 15:39:54 IST 2026
C/SCA/11479/2012 (GJHC240418452012) JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2026
03.05.2012 by the learned Tribunal are expunged and the order
imposing costs of Rs.1,500/- upon each individual member of the
Executive Council of the University is quashed and set aside.
7. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Maulin Raval for respondent
No. 2 – University has also not raised any objection to the
expunging of the remarks made by the learned Tribunal or to the
quashing and setting aside of the order imposing costs.
8. Having considered the submissions made by learned
advocates for the parties, it appears that the petitioners are before
this Court by way of the present petition aggrieved by the use of
the term “ malafide ” in the operative portion of the order dated
12.04.2012 – 03.05.2012 passed by the learned Gujarat
Universities Services Tribunal in Application No. 2. In view of the
consent of learned Senior Advocate Mr. Shalin Mehta, appearing
for respondent No. 1, as recorded in the order dated 01.04.2016,
the present petition is allowed. Accordingly, the term “malafide”
used by the learned Tribunal in the operative portion of the order
dated 12.04.2012 to 03.05.2012 passed in Application No. 2 is
hereby expunged. The order imposing costs of Rs.1,500/- in favour
of the employees and against each individual member of the
Page 4 of 5
Uploaded by MUSKAN AJAY MENON(HC02359) on Sat Sep 19 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 19 15:39:54 IST 2026
C/SCA/11479/2012 (GJHC240418452012) JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2026
Executive Council of the opponent – University is also hereby
quashed and set aside. The rest of the order shall remain
unaltered.
9. It is needless to mention at this stage that a petition filed by
the present petitioners questioning requisite qualifications of
respondent No. 1 to hold the post shall be decided independently,
and the observations made hereinabove, shall not come in the way
of the adjudication of the said petition.
10. With the observations made hereinabove, the present
petition is disposed of accordingly. In view of the disposal of the
main matter, the connected Civil Applications are also disposed of
accordingly. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
(D. M. DESAI,J)
MUSKAN
Page 5 of 5
Uploaded by MUSKAN AJAY MENON(HC02359) on Sat Sep 19 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 19 15:39:54 IST 2026