In a significant judgment that brings relief to non-teaching staff in educational institutions, the Gujarat High Court has ruled that the University Grants Commission (UGC) regulations do not govern the appointment of non-teaching staff such as Librarians and Clerks. The Court quashed the termination of an Assistant Librarian who had served the Gujarat Vidhyapith for nearly two decades, emphasizing that a university cannot fire an employee after 18 years by citing a lack of UGC approval.

The case involves Raxaben Anilkumar Patel, who began her journey with Gujarat Vidhyapith in 1983 as a Library Assistant. Over the years, she climbed the professional ladder through fresh selections and hard work. In 1989, she was appointed as an Assistant Librarian (Class-I) and successfully completed her Master of Library Science (M.Lib) within the timeframe required by the university.

Her career took a complex turn in 1996 when she was appointed to a teaching-cadre post (Assistant Librarian/Lecturer). However, when the UGC declined to approve that specific teaching post, Raxaben acted in good faith and requested to be moved back to her original non-teaching cadre. In 2007, she was reverted to the non-teaching staff list and continued her service, even receiving selection grade promotions.

In 2015—nearly 32 years after she first joined and 18 years into her tenure in the specific cadre—the university raised an audit objection. The objection claimed that she lacked mandatory qualifications like the National Eligibility Test (NET) or State Level Eligibility Test (SLET) and that her appointment lacked UGC approval.

Following this, the university issued show-cause notices and eventually terminated her services on November 30, 2017. Adding to the hardship, the university ordered a recovery of over ₹75 lakh, representing the salary and benefits she had earned over the years.

Raxaben challenged this "shocking" termination before a Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court, who ruled in her favor. The University then filed a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) before a Division Bench to challenge that reversal.

The Division Bench, comprising Justice Bhargav D. Karia and Justice L.S. Pirzada, dismissed the University’s appeal and made several critical observations regarding the rights of non-teaching employees.

1. UGC Regulations vs. Non-Teaching Staff

The Court clarified a major point of law: UGC regulations are primarily meant for teaching staff and academic standards. For non-teaching posts like Lower Division Clerks (LDC) or Library Assistants, the dispute is purely an administrative issue of the university.

"The said post of Lower Division Clerk and Library Assistant does not come under the University Grants Commission Regulations... the dispute involved is an administrative issue for which UGC has no role to play," the Bench reiterated, quoting earlier precedents.

2. The 18-Year Delay

The Court took a dim view of the university attempting to fire an employee after such a long duration. The Bench noted that Raxaben had fulfilled all qualifications required at the time of her appointment and had complied with every condition the university set. Terminating someone after 17–18 years of service was deemed "wholly unsustainable" and "arbitrary."

3. No Requirement for NET/SLET in Non-Teaching Cadre

The university's argument that she lacked NET/SLET qualifications was rejected. The Court found that since she was serving in a non-teaching capacity, these specific academic requirements (usually reserved for professors and lecturers) were not applicable to her role as per the rules prevailing at the time of her appointment.

The High Court upheld the Single Judge’s order, directing the university to pay her back wages and all retiral benefits. The Court also effectively cancelled the ₹75 lakh recovery order, protecting the employee from financial ruin.

This judgment serves as a vital precedent for thousands of non-teaching staff across India. It establishes that:

Universities cannot hide behind "UGC non-approval" to terminate non-teaching staff.
Long-standing service creates a right to stability that cannot be uprooted by sudden audit objections decades later.
Administrative errors by a university cannot be used to punish an innocent employee who has served faithfully for most of their career.

Case Title: Gujarat Vidhyapith v/s Raxaben Anilkumar Patel & Anr.

Case Number: R/Letters Patent Appeal No. 1284 of 2025

Bench: Justice Bhargav D. Karia and Justice L.S. Pirzada