Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
LPA/1228/1999 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 1228 of 1999
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6476 of 1999
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
=========================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To
be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================
ARVINDKUMAR
BABUBHAI PATIL & 39 - Appellant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 7 - Respondent(s)
=========================================
Appearance :
MR
JA ADESHRA for the Appellants.
Ms.Shruti Pathak, Assistant
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondents.
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 17/10/2011
ORAL
JUDGMENT
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI)
1. By
way of this Appeal, the appellants have challenged the judgment and
order dated 31.8.1999 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special
Civil Application No.6476 of 1999, wherein, relying upon the decision
rendered in Special Civil Application No. 6055of 1998 dated
13.8.1998, the learned Single Judge has observed in para-3 as under:
“3. The present petition relates to the select list of Bal Gurus for the District of Kheda and the grievance of the petitioners is that the vacancies for appointment already existing, the respondents have issued an advertisement for filling in the posts of Vidhya Sahayaks which is contrary to the scheme as well as directions contained in the aforesaid order. The substance of the contentions raised by Mr. Patel, learned counsel for the petitioners is that the advertisement goes to show that there already exists vacancies in Anand district to the extent of 483, out of which 75% was to be fresh appointments and the remaining by transfer from other districts and petitioners may be appointed against such vacancies. This is indirectly seeking the mandamus to operate the existing select list by giving appointments to the petitioners and to restrain the fresh appointments unless the select list is exhausted to the existing vacancies. This relief was clearly denied in the decision aforesaid and cannot, in my opinion, be now again considered indirectly by having reference to the vacancies which were lying unfilled after completion of the first phase of appointment. There is no dispute that the clause 12 of the Vidhya Sahayak Scheme for considering the persons already on the select list for appointment as Bal Guru in the Bal Guru Scheme is not applicable to the second phase of appointments. In the order of the committee constituted under the orders of the Court, it has clearly been stated that the select list of Bal Guru for the district of Kheda [as it was undivided] has already been operated for the first phase and therefore, now process is on and the stage is set for the selection and appointment of the second phase under the Vidhya Sahayak Scheme. The advertisement under challenge is also concerning the second phase of appointment under the Vidhya Sahayak Scheme.”
2. In our view, the view taken by the learned Single Judge is just and proper in view of the fact that the waiting list is already exhausted and it will not be proper to revive the dead horse. Thus, the Appeal is devoid of any merits and it is accordingly dismissed.
(V.M.SAHAI,J)
(K.S.JHAVERI,J)
***vcdarji
Top