Gujarat High Court High Court

Romilsinh vs State on 17 February, 2010

Gujarat High Court
Romilsinh vs State on 17 February, 2010
Author: Bhagwati Prasad,&Nbsp;Honourable Bankim.N.Mehta,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

LPA/55/2010	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 55 of 2010
 

In


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6417 of 2009
 

With


 

CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 56 of 2010
 

In
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 55 of 2010
 

 
=========================================================


 

ROMILSINH
ARVINDSINH THAKOR - Appellant(s)
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
Appearance : 
MR
KEYUR A VYAS for
Appellant(s) : 1, 
MR NJ SHAH, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for
Respondent(s) : 1, 
None for Respondent(s) : 2 -
3. 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 17/02/2010 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD)

Heard
learned counsel for the appellant.

The
father of the appellant died in 1997. For the first time, in 2000,
mother of the appellant filed an application that her son is minor
and on attaining the majority, he will apply for service. This
clearly shows that at the time when the father of the appellant died,
the family was not desirous of obtaining any immediate employment,
otherwise the application would have been on behalf of the mother.
This conduct itself shows that the family was not in such dire
straits that they have needed appointment on compassionate ground.
The learned single Judge relying on the decision of the Supreme Court
in the case of State of JK and others v. Sajad Ahmed Mir
reported in (2006) 5 SCC 766 and in the case of National
Hydroelectric Power Corporation and another v. Nayak Chand and
another reported in 2004 AIR SCW 6339 has rejected the
petition, in our considered opinion rightly so.

In
that view of the matter, we do not think that any illegality has been
committed by the learned single Judge in dismissing the petition. No
force. The appeal is dismissed.

In
view of dismissal of main appeal, civil application does not survive
and is accordingly disposed of.

(BHAGWATI
PRASAD, J.)

(BANKIM
N.MEHTA, J.)

shekhar/-

   

Top