Gujarat High Court
Viralgiri Jayantigiri Goswami vs State Of Gujarat & 2 on 16 July, 2015
Author: J.B.Pardiwala
Bench: J.B.Pardiwala
C/SCA/8432/2015 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8432 of 2015
===============================================
VIRALGIRI JAYANTIGIRI GOSWAMI....Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 2....Respondent(s)
===============================================
Appearance:
MR DHARMESH V SHAH, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
===============================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
Date : 16/07/2015
ORAL ORDER
1. By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-
"8.(A) Your Lordship may be pleased to Admit and allow this petition.
(B) Your Lordship may be pleased to issue a writ of quo warranto writ in the nature of quo warranto or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the Respondent Authority to take immediate action against the Respondent No.3 Dr. for the fraud played by him with the State Government to secure the government service on the basis of report and information disclosed dated 13.08.2010, 30.08.2013, 06.12.2013.
(C) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordship may be pleased to call the action taken report by the authority against the Respondent No.3 Dr. on the information disclose on the basis of report dated 13.08.2010, 30.08.2013, 06.12.2013.
(D) Pass such other and further orders as may be deemed fit, just and proper in the interest of parties."
2. Indisputably, the respondent No.3 was appointed as the Panchkarma Ayurvedic Doctor under the Gujarat Ayurvedic Services (Class-I) way back in the year 1995. The petitioner seeks to challenge the appointment of the respondent No.3 on the said post Page 1 of 2 C/SCA/8432/2015 ORDER on the ground that at the time of his appointment he had produced a bogus and false experience certificate.
3. I do not find any good ground to entertain this writ application after a period of almost 20 years.
4. It appears that the Vigilance Commissioner of the Gujarat State has already initiated an inquiry in this regard and the inquiry seems to be pending. At the end of the inquiry, if it is ultimately established that the respondent No.3 had played fraud at the time of his appointment, then the authorities shall appropriately look into the matter.
5. Mr.Shah, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner pointed out that the inquiry was initiated in the year 2007 but has not yet been completed. I expect the authorities concerned to complete the inquiry expeditiously, preferably within a period of 6 months form today.
6. With the above, this petition is disposed of.
(J.B.PARDIWALA, J.) dharmendra Page 2 of 2