Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.32 seconds)
Documents citing Rasesh C. Choksi vs The State Of Gujarat & Others on 4 November, 1977

State Of Gujarat vs C.D. Chokshi on 23 December, 1999

10. In view of the provisions of law explained above, we are of the opinion that the judgment and order of the learned single Judge cannot be sustained. Accordingly this LPA is allowed. The judgment and order of the learned single Judge impugned in the appeal and reported in 1994 (1) GCD 154 (Guj) in the case of C.D. Chokshi vs. State of Gujarat is set aside. The Special Civil Application filed by the respondent is dismissed . There will be no order as to costs althrough out.
Gujarat High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 1 - P Majmudar - Full Document

Dr. Sanjiv P. Desai vs The Dean And The Member Of The Baroda ... on 15 January, 1981

This Rule 23 quoted above had been the subject matter of decision by the Supreme Court in the case of Rasesh C. Choksi v. State of Gujarat and Ors. . In that case, the appellant there was appointed as a Houseman in Obstetrics and Gynecology from 1-1-75 to 15-1-76. The appellant bad special aptitude for the subject and he wanted to pursue his studies by becoming a Registrar in that department whenever such vacancy fell. The petitioner, however, was appointed as a Registrar of Anesthesia and he accepted the same in the hope that would be a stepping stone for his appointment as a Registrar in the department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, which had not fallen vacant till that time. On joining the post of the Registrar of Anesthesia, he gave an undertaking to serve in that capacity for a period of one year. Later, on the 15th March 1976, the appellant there received a communication that the term of his tenure was extended to another year, that is to say, that the tenure of the post was extended to two years instead of one. At that time, no undertaking was insisted upon from him. Then an advertisement for the post of the Registrar of Obstetrics and Gynecology which fell vacant with effect from 1-1-77 came to be issued and the appellant there along with others applied for the said job. The director was of the opinion that the appellant was not eligible for that post, because he had not completed the full tenure of the post of Registrar of Anesthesia and so the appellant, by recourse to Rule 23 quoted above, could not be considered and he in fact was not considered. The Supreme Court held that the appellant could not be said to have "left" his post. No bar of the nature stated by the Director was read by the Supreme Court in the above quoted Rule 23. The Supreme Court inter alia observed as follows:
Gujarat High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1