Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/8311/2010 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8311 of 2010
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8312 of 2010
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8314 of 2010
=========================================
HARGOVANBHAI
SHANKARBHAI DESAI
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS
=========================================Appearance
:
MR SI NANAVATI,
SR. ADVOCATE with MS ANUJA S NANAVATI
for the Petitioner
MS
MANISHA NARSINGHANI, ASSTT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) :
1,
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 2 -
3.
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
Date
: 22/09/2010
COMMON
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard
learned Sr. advocate Mr. S.I. Nanavati with Ms. Anuja Nanavati for
the petitioner.
2. Learned
Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Manisha Narsinghani files affidavit
of one Shri A.P. Rayiada, Office Superintendent of D.G. and I.G.P.
The contentions raised by the petitioner are replied by the deponent
in para Nos. 5,6, and 7, which read as under:-
“5. I
respectfully say that only two persons namely Shri RA Patel
(appointed on 22.07.75) as Unarmed PSI now retired) ad Shri
Hargovanbhai Desai (appointed on 1.06.94 Armed PSI) were appointed
as PSI though they were not having the prescribed qualification as
mentioned in The Police Sub Inspector (Unarmed Branch, Class III)
Recruitment Rules, 2003 and The Police Sub Inspector Armed Branch. It
is further submitted Additional Director General of Police (Armed
Unit, Gandhinagar) vide letter dated 17.09.2010 addressed to Police
Commissioner, Ahmedabad has directed the Police Commissioner to
inquire in the case of Shri Hargovanbhai Desai and submit the report.
The copy of the said letter is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure
‘R-I’.
6. I
respectfully say that as per the said rules one should have passed
Standard XII. It is further submitted that it is prescribed under the
said rules that preference may be given to the candidate who possess
N.C.C. “C” Certificate Examination.
7. I
respectfully say that petitioner is not having the said prescribed
qualification under the rules. It is further submitted even if in
some cases appointments have been made by mistake or wrongly that
does not confer any right on another person. Article 14 of the
Constitution does not envisage negative equality, and if the State
committed the mistake it cannot be forced to perpetuate the same
mistake.”
3. The
matters require consideration.
RULE.
Ad-interim relief in terms of para (7)(B).
(RAVI
R.TRIPATHI, J.)
omkar
Top