Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Ibrahimbhai Yakubbhai Kadiya & 3 on 11 February, 2014
Author: K.J.Thaker
Bench: Vijay Manohar Sahai, K.J.Thaker
C/LPA/75/2005 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 75 of 2005
In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6672 of 1991
===========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT....Appellant(s)
Versus
IBRAHIMBHAI YAKUBBHAI KADIYA & 3....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR HARSHEEL SHUKLA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Appellant(s) No.
1
MR BB NAIK, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2 - 4
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJAY MANOHAR
SAHAI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.J.THAKER
Date : 11/02/2014
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.J.THAKER)
1. By way of this appeal, the appellant-
State has challenged the order of the learned Single Judge, Dated : 18.08.2004, passed in SCA No. 6672 of 1991, whereby, respondent No.1, herein, was ordered to be appointed in service with all the benefits, except, back-wages.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the competent authority requested the Employment Exchange, Himmatnagar, to forward the names of the suitable candidate for the post of Attendant Class-IV, which was lying vacant at its office. Present respondent No.1 as well as respondent No.4 participated in the selection process undertaken by the authority, wherein, respondent No.1 secured 68 marks, whereas, respondent No.4 secured 62 Page 1 of 3 C/LPA/75/2005 ORDER marks. Despite the fact that respondent No.1 had obtained more marks than respondent No.4, the competent authority selected respondent No.4 and rejected the claim of respondent No.1 for appointment on the ground of overage. Respondent No.1, hence, preferred the aforesaid writ-petition, wherein the learned Single Judge passed the impugned order and directed the authority to appoint the respondent No.1. Hence, the present appeal.
3. Mr. Shukla, learned AGP, submitted that the learned Judge failed to appreciate the indent put up by the competent authority, which clearly stated that the candidates must be above 18 years and below 25 years of age. The learned Single Judge failed to take into account the affidavit of the appellant, wherein, it is categorically stated that respondent No.1 was overage by 2 months and 28 days. He, therefore, prayed that the appeal be allowed.
4. The operative portion of the impugned order of the learned Single Judge reads as under;
"9.1 For the foregoing reasons, the petition is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 10-9-1991 passed by the respondent no.2 is hereby quashed and set aside and the respondents nos. 1 to 3 are directed to appoint the petitioner on the post of attendant from the date the respondent no.4 is appointed giving him all benefits of service, but not back wages within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent."Page 2 of 3 C/LPA/75/2005 ORDER
5. It is submitted that the order of the learned Single Judge was never stayed and respondent No.1 came to be appointed in service somewhere in 2005 and even as of today he is discharging the duties with the concerned authorities. We have perused the order of the learned Single Judge, which is well-reasoned and does not call for any interference. Hence, the appeal deserves to be dismissed and the same is DISMISSED. No order as to costs.
(V.M.SAHAI, J.) (K.J.THAKER, J) UMESH Page 3 of 3