Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/13057/2010 1/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 13057 of 2010
=========================================
BODANA
JITENDRA SINGH S/O LAXMAN SINGH PANCHBADG
Versus
CHIEF
MANAGER OIL & NATURAL GAS CORPN. LTD AND OTHERS
=========================================Appearance
:
MS UTPALA S
BORA for
the Petitioner
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
Date
: 05/10/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. Learned
advocate Ms. Utpala S. Bora invited attention of the Court to an
affidavit filed by ONGC in Misc. Civil Application No.540 of 2009 in
Letters Patent No.557 of 2008 in Special Civil Application No.683 of
2005, relevant part of which reads as under:
7. It
is humbly submitted that in the respondent Corporation, there are
approximately 73 cases of dependents of deceased employees who are
required to be considered and appointed in terms of its policy. The
petitioner No.2’s name is at Sr.No.73 in the said list. It is humbly
submitted that the petitioner No.2’s case has already been
considered. He has already been interviewed and selected by the
respondent Corporation. However, since the petitioner was overaged at
the time of his interview, the case has been put up before the
competent authority for necessary orders for granting age
relaxation.
Besides
this, the ONGC has stated in para 9 as under:
9. The
respondent Corporation has already filed an application before the
Hon’ble Supreme Court seeking necessary directions from the Hon’ble
Supreme Court with respect to all 73 dependents of deceased including
the present petitioner No.2. A copy of the application filed by the
respondent before the Hon’ble Supreme Court is annexed hereto and
marked as ANNEXURE-R/1..
It is humbly submitted that the afore referred application is yet to
be taken up for hearing by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. However, as and
when the Hon’ble Supreme Court takes up the matter and passes
necessary orders giving clearance as sought for by the respondent
Corporation, the petitioner would be appointed.
The
present petition is filed on an apprehension that the ONGC, which has
filed the aforesaid reply, is not going to consider the case of the
petitioner in accordance with law.
2. This
Court is of the considered opinion that the petition is premature at
this stage because the name of the petitioner is at serial No.73 in a
list which is produced at page 69- Annexure-P5. One can understand if
the name of the petitioner was at a particular number and candidate
subsequent to the petitioner is given an appointment, then the
petitioner can contend that the same is not just and reasonable. In
the present case, the petitioner being at Srl. No.73, that
eventuality has not happened. Therefore, his apprehension is found to
be without any basis and therefore, this petition is not entertained
at this stage. However, it is clarified that, non entertainment of
this petition does not mean that the case of the petitioner is not
to be considered by the ONGC in accordance with law, more
particularly in light of the averments made in paragraphs 7 and 9 of
the affidavit-in-reply. (emphasis supplied).
3. It
is expected from the ONGC that it will keep the candidates informed
whose names appear in the list, which is produced at Annexure-‘P5’,
about the progress in their case, so that they do not suffer agony of
waiting in dark. With these observation, the petition is not
entertained and is disposed of.
4. It
will be open for the petitioner to file a petition for the same
relief if the petitioner is not appointed.
A
copy of this order be made available to the learned advocate for the
petitioner for serving to the concerned authority.
Direct
service is permitted.
(RAVI
R.TRIPATHI, J.)
omkar
Top