Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/6757/2010 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6757 of 2010
=========================================================
MITESHKUMAR
RAMESHBHAI CHAUDHARY - Petitioner(s)
Versus
AHMEDABAD
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
UT MISHRA for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 1 -
2.
MR HS MUNSHAW for Respondent(s) : 1 -
2.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 14/06/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. By
way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
the petitioner has prayed to direct the respondents to consider his
case as per the Advertisement (at Annexure-A) and to hold that he is
eligible for appointment to the post of Labour-cum-Welfare Officer as
per the said Advertisement.
2. The
facts in brief are that the respondent had published an Advertisement
(Annexure-A to the petition) for recruitment of Labour-cum-Welfare
Officers. The petitioner applied for the same in the prescribed form.
In pursuance thereof, the petitioner was called by the respondents
and was told that he does not possess the requisite qualifications
for appointment on the said post. Being aggrieved by the same, the
petitioner has preferred the present petition.
3.
Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the
documents on record. It appears from the Advertisement (Annexure-A)
that the minimum qualification prescribed for appointment to the post
in question is that one should be a (i) Law Graduate & D.L.P.; or
(ii) M.L.W.; or (iii) M.S.W. or its equivalent. Admittedly, on the
date of submission of the Application Form, the petitioner herein was
not a Law graduate since he had only cleared the First LL.B. exam by
that time. Therefore, on the date of submission of the Application
Form, the petitioner was not having the minimum prescribed
qualification for appointment to the said post.
4. In
above view of the matter, the respondents were completely justified
in rejecting the case of the petitioner and I find no reasons to
interfere with the same. Consequently, the petition stands rejected.
No costs.
[K.S.
JHAVERI, J.]
Pravin/*
Top