Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.40 seconds)
Documents citing Miteshkumar Rameshbhai Patel And Anr. vs State Of Gujarat And Anr. on 23 February, 2006

Patel Dineshkumar Ratilal & vs State Of Gujarat & on 2 July, 2014

5. Mr. K.B. Pujara, learned counsel appearing on behalf Page 3 of 10 C/SCA/8137/2014 JUDGMENT of the petitioners invited the attention of the court to the advertisement dated 14th February, 2014 issued by the Gujarat State Primary Education Selection Committee and Director of Primary Education whereby applications came to be invited from candidates seeking appointment on the posts of Vidya Sahayak in the primary schools run by the District Education Committees for the year 2014, to point out that there is no provision made which permits the respondents to gross the marks obtained by the candidate in all the attempts. Referring to the general instructions in the said advertisement and more particularly, clause (15) thereof, it was pointed out that the computation of merit is required to be made in terms of the Government Resolutions mentioned therein namely, the Government Resolutions dated 27th April, 2011, 3rd May, 2012 and 18th May, 2012. Referring to the said government resolutions, it was pointed out that none of them provide for adopting the course of action as adopted by the respondents of grossing the marks obtained by a candidate in all the attempts. Reliance was placed upon an unreported decision of this court in the case of Patel Hareshkumar Rameshbhai v. State of Gujarat rendered on 29th April, 2008 in Special Civil Application No.24535/2007 wherein in the facts of the said case, 1% marks had been deducted from the total marks of the concerned candidate as the candidate had first attempted in the Science Stream and had thereafter taken another attempt in the General Stream. Before the court, it was pointed out that the Director of Primary Education in his own wisdom had ordered for deduction of 1% marks where Vidya Sahayak recruitment is concerned for the purpose of determining the merit, if the candidate had taken more than one attempt. The court found that no source was identified for the aforesaid Page 4 of 10 C/SCA/8137/2014 JUDGMENT instructions. It was observed that there was no source available to make such orders to the Director over and above the Government policy and moreover, such change was not notified in the advertisement or otherwise by the respondents. The court held that the Director had overreached the State Government policy and that he had no power to formulate such scheme whereby the established schemes of the Government turn prejudicial to the candidate. The court, accordingly, directed that the case of the said petitioner be rejudged by adding 1% marks in his merit. Mr. Pujara accordingly urged that the said decision would be squarely applicable to the facts of the present case where the scheme for recruitment does not provide for aggregation of marks obtained at different attempts and as such, the petition deserves to be allowed.
Gujarat High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 1 - H Devani - Full Document

Dhandhalya Pratikkumar Ishwarbhai vs State Of Gujarat & on 25 January, 2016

10. Evidently, therefore, the advertisement inviting applications for the post of Vidya Sahayak does not prescribe for grossing the marks obtained in all the attempts and considering the percentage thereof for the purpose of merit, nor do the Government Resolutions which find mention in the general instructions, provide for such course of action. The circular/resolution dated 9th August, 2011 passed by the District Selection Committee does not find any reference in the advertisement dated 14th February, 2014 nor has any amendment been made in the said scheme subsequently. The respondents, on their own, have applied the circular/resolution dated 9th August, 2011 without notice to the candidates. At this juncture it may be apposite to refer to the decision of this court in the case of Patel Hareshkumar Rameshbhai v. State of Gujarat (supra) wherein it has been held thus:-
Gujarat High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - S G Gokani - Full Document

Mustakali Mahmedbhai Shaikh And Ors. vs State Of Gujarat And Ors. on 15 March, 2007

6. Learned Counsel for some of the accused persons, Mr. Vijay H. Patel, vehemently argued that the application for further investigation was made with the ulterior motive of delaying the trial while more than 100 accused persons were facing the trial since several years and about 38 witnesses were already examined. He submitted that even as the statements and reports of investigation dated 14-9-2002 and 27-10-2003 were submitted in the Court and the petitioners were represented by their own Advocates, no grievance was made for three years about incorrect statements having been recorded by the investigating agency. He further submitted that the accused persons were likely to suffer prejudice and harassment, even as they were on bail, if investigation were reopened and the trial were to be delayed. He relied upon recent judgment of this Court (Coram : J.R. Vora, J.) in Miteshkumar Rameshbhai Patal v. State of Gujarat and Anr. and cited the legal proposition laid down therein that no Court can direct further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code after taking cognizance upon police report.
Gujarat High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - D H Waghela - Full Document

Rameshbhai vs Minaxiben on 28 April, 2011

12.5 In the context of delayed and belated exercise of revisional powers by the Authority in the event of breach of any statutory provision, learned Senior Advocate Mr. S.B. Vakil has relied upon the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Ram Chand vs. Union of India, reported in (1994) 1 SCC 44 and in the case of Mohamad Kavi Mohamad Amin vs. Fatmabai Ibrahim, reported in (1997) 6 SCC 71, and a decision of this Court in the case of Patel Rameshbhai Ramabhai v. State, reported in 2008(3) GLR 2049, and submitted that, where no time-limit is prescribed for exercise of power, it should be exercised within a reasonable time.
Gujarat High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - A S Dave - Full Document

Saktaji vs State on 12 July, 2011

In support of his submission, learned advocate relying upon the decision of this Court in case of Patel Rameshbhai Ramabhai & Anr. Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr., reported in 2008 (3) GLR pg. 2049, and in case of Gujarat Khet Kamdar Union Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors, reported in 1999 (3) GLR pg. 2044, contended that delay of six years in initiating suo motu proceedings was impermissible and hence the same ought to have been appreciated by the concerned authorities and the order of Mamlatdar & ALT should have been quashed and set aside.
Gujarat High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - S R Brahmbhatt - Full Document

Shreya Enterprise Throguh Its Prop. ... vs State Of Gujarat on 9 September, 2021

1. Mr.Nirav R. Mishra, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Deputy Director (Flying Squad), Geology and Mining Department, has issued the show cause notice dated 01.07.2021; however, while issuing the show cause notice, the copy whereof, was endorsed to the Deputy Director, IT directing it to lock the online account of the petitioner. It is submitted that such notice, is in violation of the provisions of Rule 5(4) read with proviso of the Rules of the Gujarat Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 2017"). Reliance is placed on the order passed by this Court in the case of Yogeshkumar Ramanbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat rendered in Special Civil Application No.11841 of 2021. It is submitted that this Court when found that the action of the respondent, was not in conformity with the provisions of the Rules of 2017, it had quashed the action and directed it to open the online account of the petitioner concerned.
Gujarat High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - S K Vishen - Full Document

Shreeji Suppliers Through Its ... vs State Of Gujarat on 9 September, 2021

1. Mr.Nirav R. Mishra, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Deputy Director (Flying Squad), Geology and Mining Department, has issued the show cause notice dated 01.07.2021; however, while issuing the show cause notice, the copy whereof, was endorsed to the Deputy Director, IT directing it to lock the online account of the petitioner. It is submitted that such notice, is in violation of the provisions of Rule 5(4) read with proviso of the Rules of the Gujarat Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 2017"). Reliance is placed on the order passed by this Court in the case of Yogeshkumar Ramanbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat rendered in Special Civil Application No.11841 of 2021. It is submitted that this Court when found that the action of the respondent, was not in conformity with the provisions of the Rules of 2017, it had quashed the action and directed it to open the online account of the petitioner concerned.
Gujarat High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - S K Vishen - Full Document
1   2 Next