Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/680019/1993 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6800 of 1993
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
=========================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To be
referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================================
JASHBHAI
RAMJIBHAI PARMAR - Petitioner(s)
Versus
AHMEDABAD
TEXTILE INDUSTRIES RESEARCH ASSOCIATION & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
JITENDRA MALKAN for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
NANAVATI ASSOCIATES for Respondent(s) : 1,
RULE
SERVED for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
Date
: 18/03/2009
ORAL
JUDGMENT
By
way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
the petitioner has
challenged the action of the respondent No.1 in considering the
case of the respondent No.1 for the post of Weaving Assistant /
Craftsman on the ground that the post in question was reserved for
the candidate belonging to the Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribes
is holding qualification of Diploma in Textile Manufacturer (DTM).
It
is required to be noted that while admitting the presents Civil
Application, the learned Single Judge vide order dtd.24/8/1993 has
granted interim relief in terms of para 24(D) and the said interim
relief has been continued till date. Though served, nobody appears
on behalf of the respondent No.2. Thus, it appears that the
respondent No.2 is not aggrieved by the interim relief.
Mr.Maulik
R.Shah, learned advocate appearing for Nanavati Associates for the
respondent No.1 has submitted that as such the petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable as the
respondent No.1 cannot be said to be a State within the meaning of
Article 12 of the Constitution of India. However, without prejudice
to his above contention, he has submitted that when the respondent
No.1 is restrained from considering the case of the respondent No.2
for the post of Weaving Assistant / Craftsman since 1993 and the
said interim relief has been continued till today, the respondent
No.1 would not like to consider the case of the respondent No.2 now.
Under
the circumstances and in view of the above statement made by the
learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 and in
view of the fact that the interim relief has been continued till
today, no further order is required to be passed except making the
interim relief granted earlier absolute and the present petition is
accordingly disposed of. However, the question with respect to the
maintainability of the petition against the respondent No.1 is kept
open and this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits with
respect to the same. However, it is observed that as and when the
respondent No.1 proposes to fill up the post in question, the same
shall be filled in in accordance with law. With these present
petition is disposed of.
[M.R. SHAH, J.]
rafik
Top