Facts
The petitioners, working as Assistant Professors and Lecturers in Government Engineering Colleges, were required to acquire Master’s Degrees to comply with AICTE guidelines and Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) requirements
Source reference: p. 2, 3Failure to do so would result in the stoppage of increments
Source reference: p. 3The petitioners were granted study leave to pursue higher studies; however, a dispute arose regarding their remuneration during this period.
Source reference: no citationWhile some received full salary, others received half, and the State subsequently sought to recover 50% of the salary paid to those who received full pay.
Source reference: no citationThe State justified this recovery based on the Gujarat Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 2002, and Government Resolutions (G.R.) dated 03.02.2016 and 21.12.2023
Source reference: p. 3, 4The petitioners challenged these recovery orders and sought payment of full salaries for the study leave period
Source reference: p. 4Issues
1. Whether the recovery of half salary from the petitioners is legally sustainable in view of the principles of natural justice
Source reference: p. 9, para. 112. Whether the petitioners are entitled to full salary during the period of study leave under AICTE guidelines despite the restrictive provisions of the Gujarat Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 2002
Source reference: p. 10, para. 12.1; p. 19, para. 153. Whether the Government Resolution dated 21.12.2023 can be applied retrospectively to justify the distinction between QIP and non-QIP categories for salary purposes
Source reference: p. 11, para. 13Law Applied
The Court applied the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) Act, 1987, and the associated "Quality Improvement Programme" (QIP) policy, which stipulates that faculty members on deputation for higher studies should be paid their normal salary and allowances by the parent institution
Source reference: p. 14, 15The Court relied on the precedent *State of T.N. v. Adhiyaman Educational & Research Institute (1995)*, establishes that Central Acts (AICTE Act) prevail over inconsistent State Rules (Gujarat Civil Services Rules) in technical education matters
Source reference: p. 21, para. 15.2It further applied the principle of Natural Justice, requiring an opportunity for a hearing before adverse recovery
Source reference: p. 9Reasoning
The Court first determined that the recovery orders were void *ab initio* as they were issued without granting the petitioners an opportunity to be heard
Source reference: p. 9, para. 11On merits, the Court noted that the G.R. dated 03.02.2016, which formed the basis for recovery, had already been quashed by a Coordinate Bench because it conflicted with AICTE norms
Source reference: p. 9-10The Court rejected the State's reliance on the G.R. dated 21.12.2023, holding that it could not be applied retrospectively to transactions from 2018
Source reference: p. 11The Court emphasized that the Gujarat Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 2002, are general rules that must yield to the AICTE Act—a special Central legislation
Source reference: p. 21, para. 15.2Since the AICTE guidelines mandate study leave "with pay" for acquiring promotional qualifications, the State's attempt to provide only "half-pay" under Rule 84 of the State Rules was deemed inconsistent and illegal
Source reference: p. 20-21Holding
The Court allowed the petitions and quashed the impugned recovery orders
It held that all petitioners are entitled to receive full salary during their study leave period
Source reference: p. 21, para. 16.1The Court directed the respondents to calculate and pay the differential arrears to the petitioners by May 31, 2026, failing which a 6% interest per annum would apply from June 1, 2026, until realization
Source reference: p. 21-22, para. 16.2Rule was made absolute
Source reference: p. 22Original Court PDF
Chevali Sandeep Shambhulal v. State of Gujarat & Ors. [2026:GUJHC:1203]
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in