Gujarat High Court
Yogita Ramesh Deore vs State Of Gujarat & 2 on 9 June, 2017
Author: K.M.Thaker
Bench: K.M.Thaker
C/SCA/2197/2006 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2197 of 2006
==========================================================
YOGITA RAMESH DEORE....Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 2....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS PRITI PANDYA, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR. SWAPNESHWAR GOUTAM, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR PRASHANT G DESAI, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2 - 3
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
Date : 09/06/2017
ORAL ORDER
1. This petition was listed for final hearing on 08.06.2017. However, since learned advocate for petitioner was not present and Court was informed that learned advocate for petitioner has filed sick note, hearing was adjourned to today.
2. Today also, learned advocate for petitioner is not present and the Court is informed today also that learned advocate for the petitioner has filed sick note.
Page 1 of 6 HC-NIC Page 1 of 6 Created On Fri Aug 18 06:08:52 IST 2017 C/SCA/2197/2006 ORDER 2.1 Though learned Counsel for the petitioner has filed sick note, this Court is of considered view that since the petition is pending for almost 11 years, it deserves to be decided without further delay, more so because it is rendered infructuous.
3. The Court has considered the petition in detail. From the relief prayed for in the petition it appears that with passage of time coupled with fact that at the time of admission or thereafter any interim relief has not been granted, the petition is rendered infructuous.
4. From the record, it has emerged that somewhere in July, 2004, respondent no.1 had issued an advertisement and invited application for appointment of Vidhya Sahayak. 4.1 It also appears that the petitioner, a graduate in Arts faculty and also holding qualification of B.Ed, had submitted her Page 2 of 6 HC-NIC Page 2 of 6 Created On Fri Aug 18 06:08:52 IST 2017 C/SCA/2197/2006 ORDER application in response to the advertisement. 4.2 She claims that she possessed qualification prescribed in the advertisement. The petitioner also claims that she submitted N.C.T.E Certificate. However, she was not called for interview.
4.3 In this background, the petitioner filed this petition and prayed for below quoted relief:
"9(a) Your Lordship may kindly be pleased to set aside and quash the objection of N.C.T.E Certificate and to take on consider the merit of the Vidyasahayak as per an advertisement.
(b) Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondent No.2 Committee to consider the N.C.T.E Certificate with my representation and to select the merit of OBC Candidate as Vidyasahayak of the petitioner."
5. From above mentioned details it becomes clear that the advertisement was issued in July, 2004 and in pursuance of the said advertisement, selection process was undertaken. Almost 13 years have passed since the advertisement was issued. 5.1 As mentioned above, in the interregnum Page 3 of 6 HC-NIC Page 3 of 6 Created On Fri Aug 18 06:08:52 IST 2017 C/SCA/2197/2006 ORDER neither selection process was stayed nor the respondent was restrained from effecting appointment.
5.2 Under the circumstances, the respondent must have proceeded to complete the selection process and must have effected appointment i.e. by now the selection process which commenced in 2004 must have culminated in final selection and appointment of some applicant.
5.3 In present petition, the petitioner has not challenged the appointment by the respondent no.2 and respondent no.3. The petitioner has not impleaded the selected candidates. Any amendment on the basis of subsequent events has also not been carried out and subsequent details are not placed on record.
6. In this view of the matter and having regard to the fact that the selection process which commenced in 2004, must have reached to its Page 4 of 6 HC-NIC Page 4 of 6 Created On Fri Aug 18 06:08:52 IST 2017 C/SCA/2197/2006 ORDER logical end and as a result of the said selection process the selected candidates must have been appointed, the petition is rendered infructuous, more particularly because the selection/ appointment is not challenged and the selected candidates are not party to the present petition.
7. In this view of the matter, the petition is disposed of as infructuous. Rule discharged.
8. It is, however, clarified that since present order is passed in absence of learned advocate for petitioner who has filed sick note, if the petitioner intends to prosecute the petition on merits or for any reason the petitioner desires that the order may be recalled then, for adequate and satisfactory reason, the petitioner may file appropriate application with request to recall the order. Such application, if and when filed, will be considered in light of the fact stated by the petitioner.
Page 5 of 6 HC-NIC Page 5 of 6 Created On Fri Aug 18 06:08:52 IST 2017 C/SCA/2197/2006 ORDER (K.M.THAKER, J.) saj Page 6 of 6 HC-NIC Page 6 of 6 Created On Fri Aug 18 06:08:52 IST 2017