Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 2 of 2 (0.22 seconds)D.G. Dalal vs State Of Gujarat on 17 July, 2001
However, at the relevant point of time, none of
the aforesaid three posts was vacant and
therefore respondent no.3 was not offered the
said posts. He was offered the post of Taluka
Development Officer. However, he had never opted
for the post of Taluka Development Officer
because he was already selected as TDO in earlier
recruitment process and he was working in the
said post and thereafter he was promoted as
Deputy Collector. Thus, while applying the ratio
laid down by this Court in the case of D.G.Dalal
(supra), if the post of Dy.S.P. for SEBC category
is offered to the respondent No.3 who is next
meritorious candidate for the vacant post of
Dy.S.P. SEBC category, it cannot be said that
respondent No.2 has intentionally and willfully
violated the directions issued by this Court in
the order dated 21.04.2017 passed in the
captioned petitions. We are not examining the
correctness or otherwise of the procedure adopted
by the respondent authorities in the present
application as the same is filed under the
provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act.
1