Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/824/2011 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 824 of 2011
=========================================================
PAGI
GITABEN MAHASUKHBHAI - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 3 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR.
S.I. NANAVATI FOR MS.ANUJA S NANAVATI
for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 1,
None
for Respondent(s) : 2 - 3.
MR. P.V. HATHI FOR MS KHYATI P HATHI
for Respondent(s) :
4,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HON'BLE
SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI
Date
: 28/01/2011
ORAL
ORDER
Heard
Mr. S.I. Nanavati, learned Senior Advocate with Mr. Saurabh Mehta,
learned advocate for the petitioner. It is submitted by him that the
impugned order dated 07.01.2011 is self-contradictory, inasmuch as it
is stated in the first paragraph thereof that the Sports Certificates
of the petitioner were not appended to the application. In the second
paragraph, it is stated that the Sports Certificates have not been
certified whereas, in the third paragraph, it is stated that the
Sports Certificates have been submitted later on. The learned Senior
Advocate further submits that before passing the impugned order, the
petitioner was not granted an effective opportunity of meeting with
the allegations levelled against her, as the material relied upon by
the respondents, as stated in the impugned order, as well as report
of the inquiry conducted by the State Government, have not been
supplied to her. It is further contended that the petitioner has
participated in the Camp for verification of her certificates and
only when the certificates were verified and found to be in order,
was the petitioner called for the interview. It is further submitted
that the appointment of the petitioner was delayed, as another round
of scrutiny took place, as has been learnt by the petitioner, and is
evident from letters dated 21.05.2008, 11.06.2008 and 17.07.2008 of
respondents Nos.2 and 4, therefore, it cannot be said that the
appointment of the petitioner has been made without proper scrutiny
of certificates.
Heard
Mr. K.P. Raval, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents
Nos.1 and 2 and Mr. P.V. Hathi, learned advocate for respondent
No.4(Caveator). Mr. Hathi, learned advocate for respondent No.4
states, upon instructions, that no appointments are going to be made
before 17.02.2011.
Notice,
returnable on 17.02.2011.
In
addition to the normal mode of service, Direct Service is also
permitted.
(Smt.
Abhilasha Kumari, J.)
Safir*
Top