Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 3]

Gujarat High Court

Kurjibhai Son Of Devjibhai Songara vs State Of Gujarat & 2 on 23 September, 2014

Author: Abhilasha Kumari

Bench: Abhilasha Kumari

        C/CA/11016/2014                             ORDER




         IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

       CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR DIRECTION) NO. 11016 of 2014
         In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2771 of 2014
================================================================
        KURJIBHAI SON OF DEVJIBHAI SONGARA....Applicant(s)
                            Versus
              STATE OF GUJARAT & 2....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR AS SUPEHIA, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS SHRUTI PATHAK, ASST.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent No.1-
2
MS KHYATI P HATHI, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 3
================================================================
        CORAM: HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA
               KUMARI

                          Date : 23/09/2014
                           ORAL ORDER

1. Rule.   Ms.Shruti   Pathak,   learned   Assistant  Government   Pleader  waives   service   of   notice   of   Rule  for   respondents  Nos.1   and   2.   Ms.Khyati   P.   Hathi,  learned advocate waives service of notice of Rule for  respondent No.3.

2. This application has been preferred with a prayer  to permit the applicant to participate in the camp to  be organized for the purpose of promotion.

3. The   applicant   is   the   original   petitioner   of  Special Civil Application No.2771/2014, which has been  Page 1 of 4 C/CA/11016/2014 ORDER filed with the following prayers  :

"9(A) Directing   the   respondents   to   include   the   name   of   the   petitioner   in   the   select   list   prepared for promotion to  the post  of Head   Teachers and further issue posting orders on   the place as per their choice/option. 9(B) During   the   pendency   and   final   disposal   of   the   petition   the   respondent   No.3   may   be   directed to allow the petitioner to exercise   their option for choice of place in the Camp   to be organized on 20.02.2014."

4. By an order dated 19.02.2014, this Court issued  notice   and   granted   ad­interim   relief   in   terms   of  paragraph­9(B).   However,   the   aforesaid   camp   was   not  held on 20.02.2014, because of a stay order granted by  this Court in another petition. Now, the camp is to be  held   on   26.09.2014.   However,   by   a   letter   dated  18.09.2014, respondent No.3 has informed the applicant  that the Court has permitted the applicant to appear  in the camp to be held on 20.02.2014, therefore, he  would not be allowed to participate in any camp to be  held subsequently.

5. This   Court   has   heard   Mr.A.S.Supehia,   learned  advocate for the applicant, Ms.Shruti Pathak, learned  Assistant Government Pleader for respondents Nos.1 and  Page 2 of 4 C/CA/11016/2014 ORDER 2   and   Ms.Khyati   P.   Hathi,   learned   advocate   for  respondent No.3.

6. This Court has granted ad­interim relief in terms  of   paragraph­9(B)   of   the   petition,   permitting   the  petitioner to exercise option for choice of place in  the camp that was to be organized on 20.02.2014.

7. At   that   point   of   time,   neither   the   petitioner,  nor   the   respondents,   were   aware   that   the   said   camp  would not be held on 20.02.2014. Hence, the fact that  the   camp   was   not   held   on   that   day,   cannot   be   used  against   the   applicant   in   order   to   disallow   him   to  participate in the subsequent camp. The intention of  the   Court,   in   passing   the   ad­interim   order,   was   to  permit the petitioner to participate in the camp that  was to be held on the scheduled date. If the camp is  now scheduled to be held subsequently, that would not  dilute the force of the order of this Court. Hence,  the   stand   of   respondent  No.3,  in  not   permitting  the  applicant to participate in the camp scheduled to be  held on 26.09.2014, is unreasonable and unjustified.

8. Hence, the following order :

Page 3 of 4 C/CA/11016/2014 ORDER

The applicant is permitted to participate in the  camp   to   be   organized   by   respondent   No.3   for   the  purpose   of   promotion   to   the   post   of   Head   Teacher,  whenever it is held.
The application is allowed, in the above terms.
Rule is made absolute, accordingly. 
(SMT. ABHILASHA KUMARI, J.) Gaurav+ Page 4 of 4