Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.54 seconds)
Documents citing Mayank Bhagwandas Shethwala vs High Court Of Gujarat on 1 May, 2019

Ila Ganpatlal Patel vs High Court Of Gujarat on 27 December, 2019

4. Learned advocate for the petitioner could emphatically submit that when the proposal was made on 12th January, 2018, the new Rules had not come into force and the petitioner was liable to be promoted as she possessed the necessary eligibility. Learned advocate could further relied on decision of this Court in Mayank Bhagvandas Shethwala v. High Court of Gujarat being Special Civil Application No.6231 of 2018 decided as per order dated 24th June, 2019, the facts of which were akin to the facts of the present case.
Gujarat High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 1 - N V Anjaria - Full Document

Chhayaben Rajendra Desai vs State Of Gujarat on 8 February, 2021

11. From the averments made in the petition itself it becomes clear though the petitioner seems to be the senior most in the cadre of Deputy Registrars and was duly qualified for promotion to the post of Registrar, District Court but her case along­with other employees was not scrutinized by the departmental promotion committee not only that the petitioner has not disclose her educational qualifications in the petition that in the other words whether the petitioner has not disclosed whether she is law graduate or not. In the back­drop of the facts of this case and the provisions of the Recruitment Rules when the petitioner though eligible for promotion cannot claim promotion as a right. The decision of this Court in the case of Mayank Bhagwandas Shethwala v. High Court of Gujarat & others dated 24.06.2019 cannot be of any help to the petitioner as the facts are diametrically different. In the said case, the name of the petitioner was repeatedly recommended for promotion as Registrar of District Court, however on one ground or the other, he could get the actual promotion whereas admittedly in the Page 7 of 8 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 02 04:05:15 IST 2021 C/SCA/2315/2021 ORDER present case, the present case of the petitioner was never considered by the departmental promotion committee along­with other candidates who assess the suitability or otherwise for promotion as Registrar and was never recommended tot he High Court for promotion before the petitioner attained the age of superannuation.
Gujarat High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - A G Uraizee - Full Document

Chhayaben Rajendra Desai vs State Of Gujarat on 8 February, 2021

11. From the averments made in the petition itself it becomes clear though the petitioner seems to be the senior most in the cadre of Deputy Registrars and was duly qualified for promotion to the post of Registrar, District Court but her case along­with other employees was not scrutinized by the departmental promotion committee not only that the petitioner has not disclose her educational qualifications in the petition that in the other words whether the petitioner has not disclosed whether she is law graduate or not. In the back­drop of the facts of this case and the provisions of the Recruitment Rules when the petitioner though eligible for promotion cannot claim promotion as a right. The decision of this Court in the case of Mayank Bhagwandas Shethwala v. High Court of Gujarat & others dated 24.06.2019 cannot be of any help to the petitioner as the facts are diametrically different. In the said case, the name of the petitioner was repeatedly recommended for promotion as Registrar of District Court, however on one ground or the other, he could get the actual promotion whereas admittedly in the Page 7 of 8 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 07:16:48 IST 2022 C/SCA/2315/2021 ORDER present case, the present case of the petitioner was never considered by the departmental promotion committee along­with other candidates who assess the suitability or otherwise for promotion as Registrar and was never recommended tot he High Court for promotion before the petitioner attained the age of superannuation.
Gujarat High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - A G Uraizee - Full Document

Mustak Abdulgani Shaikh vs The State Of Gujarat on 8 April, 2022

11. It is in light of this communication that the decision relied upon by Mr.Joshi in case of Mayank Bhagwandas Shethwala (supra) needs to be considered. In case of the petitioner therein, he could not be considered for promotion to the post of Registrar till he retired and therefore the prayer like the one in the other petition was to grant him the benefit of notional promotion. What is evident is that after the willingness of the petitioner was asked for, his name was recommended for promotion to the post of Registrar. Pending such consideration, the Rules known as the Non-Judicial and Staff of the Courts (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules 2017, came into force. The petitioner and other candidates came to be invited for oral interview on 04.07.2017. The interviews took place on 11.07.2017. Page 7 of 10 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 12 20:37:32 IST 2022 C/SCA/17956/2019 ORDER DATED: 08/04/2022 The petitioner was once again recommended on 12.07.2017. The policy which was prevalent of granting six increments was discontinued and therefore a fresh proposal or willingness was sought. His case was again considered on the third occasion for promotion and before it fructified, the petitioner retired on superannuation. The Court considering the submissions of the respondents therein, on the facts held that the petitioner's case was recommended more than once, despite of which, he could not be promoted for reasons beyond his control.
Gujarat High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - B Vaishnav - Full Document

Urmila D Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 24 November, 2022

C/SCA/3537/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2022 5.7 Reliance is placed upon the decision in case of Mayank Bhagwandas Shethwala Vs. High Court of Gujarat & Anr. Passed in Special Civil Application No.6231 of 2018 to support the claim of the petitioner that, if she is found eligible for promotion, but was not given promotion in time, then such a candidate should not be deprived of the benefits otherwise available by treating such candidate to have promoted.
Gujarat High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - A Y Kogje - Full Document

High Court Of Gujarat vs State Of Gujarat on 15 July, 2025

It is submitted that thus, the decision rendered in the case of Mayank Page 3 of 15 Uploaded by MR.MITESH VIJAYBHAI PANCHAL(HCD0065) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 23:03:16 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/783/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined Bhagvandas Shethwala (supra) will not apply in the present case and hence, the learned Single Judge fell in error.
Gujarat High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - A S Supehia - Full Document

Nitinkumar Vithaldas Sagar vs State Of Gujarat on 30 September, 2025

5.7 Reliance is placed upon the decision in case of Mayank Bhagwandas Shethwala Vs. High Court of Gujarat & Anr. Passed in Special Civil Application No.6231 of 2018 to support the claim of the petitioner that, if she is found eligible for promotion, but was not given promotion in time, then such a candidate should not be deprived of the benefits otherwise available by treating such candidate to have promoted.
Gujarat High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1