Gujarat High Court High Court

Thakore vs Gujarat on 23 June, 2011

Gujarat High Court
Thakore vs Gujarat on 23 June, 2011
Author: Abhilasha Kumari,
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/7667/2011	 4/ 4	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7667 of 2011
 

With


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7670 of 2011
 

To


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7671 of 2011
 
 
=====================================================
 

THAKORE
RAMESHKUMAR AADARSINH & 2 - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

GUJARAT
STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION - THROUGH CHAIRMAN & 1 -
Respondent(s)
 

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

 
Appearance
: 
MR MUKESH H RATHOD for
Petitioner(s) : 1 - 3. 
Mr.Hardik C.Rawal, learned advocate for the
 Respondent(s) : 1 -
2. 
=====================================================
 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HON'BLE
			SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 23/06/2011 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

1. By
filing these petitions, the petitioners have prayed for issuance of
an appropriate writ or direction, directing the respondent-Gujarat
State Road Transport Corporation to decide the applications filed by
the petitioners for grant of appointment on compassionate grounds, as
per the prevailing policy. The petitioners have made applications to
the respondent-Corporation for giving them appointments on the post
of Clerk.

2. Today,
when the matter is taken up for hearing, Mr.Mukesh H. Rathod, learned
advocate for the petitioners states, upon instructions, that the
petitioners are ready and willing to be considered for appointment on
any post lower than that of Clerk and for this purpose the
petitioners are willing to give undertakings to the
respondent-Corporation. Therefore, without prejudice to the rights
and contentions of the petitioners regarding their appointment on the
post of Clerk in future, the respondent-Corporation may consider the
petitioners for appointment on a lower post. This concession may not
preclude the petitioners from making fresh applications for the post
of Clerk, as and when such posts are advertised in the future. The
learned advocate for the petitioners further states that if the
respondent-Corporation is willing to consider the petitioners for
posts lower than that of Clerk, the petitions may be disposed of,
with appropriate directions.

3. Mr.

Hardik C. Rawal, learned advocate for the respondents has submitted
that the respondents will consider
the case of the petitioners for grant of appointments on
compassionate grounds at posts lower than that of Clerk, subject to
availability of the posts. Further, the applications made by the
petitioners for grant of compassionate appointment shall be
considered for the lower post, in accordance with law.

4. Having
heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and in view of
the above statements made by them, the following order is passed:

The
petitioners shall give undertakings to the respondent-Corporation to
the effect that they are ready and willing to be considered for
appointment on compassionate grounds, on posts lower than that of
Clerk within 3 weeks from today. The respondent-Corporation may
consider the applications made by the petitioners for grant of
appointment on posts lower than that of Clerk, in accordance with
law, and as expeditiously as possible. The petitioners are at liberty
to make fresh applications for the post of Clerk, as and when
vacancies in the cadre of Clerk arise and the posts are advertised.

5. The
petitions are disposed of, in the above terms, with liberty to the
petitioners to approach this Court, in case of difficulty.

6. It
is clarified that while passing this order, the Court has not entered
into the merits of the case.

(Smt.Abhilasha Kumari,J)

arg

   

Top