Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/3051/1995 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3051 of 1995
=========================================================
ASHWINKUMAR
SAKARLAL ACHARYA - Petitioner(s)
Versus
GSRTC
- Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
MANOJ N POPAT for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR HS MUNSHAW for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 15/03/2010
ORAL
ORDER
By
way of this petition the petitioner has prayed for directions,
declaring that the action of the respondent in not giving the
appointment to the petitioner in class III, post is arbitrary,
discriminatory and illegal.
The
brief facts of the case are as under :-
2.1
It is the say of the petitioner that his father was an employee of
the S.T. Corporation and expired while on active service.
2.2
The petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate ground to
the respondent. The petitioner was appointed as Class-IV as helper
under the respondent. The petitioner joined the service as a Helper
from 27th January 1989.
2.3
The Corporation vide its standing order no. 659/79 dated 6.4.1979
has brought to the attention of all the heads of the Offices/
Branches the policy of the Corporation that it was decided by the
Corporation under Resolution no. 3603 dated 14.12.1972 and standing
order no. 361/73 dated 18.6.1973 that if an employee dies while in
active service, and if there is no earning member in his family,
one of his dependent should be given appointment in Class III or
Class IV post subject to his qualification for holding such post.
2.4
The petitioner has passed his examination in T.Y.B.Sc. and Third
LL.B. Examination. In another case, the respondents had considered
the said policy, but in petitioner’s case they denied. Hence this
petition.
Heard
learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the
documents on record.
From
the record it revealed that the respondent authority has not
considered the aforesaid Government Resolution and the
qualification of the petitioner. It is also evident that a
representation is already made by the petitioner on 26.2.2010, which
is pending as on today. In that view of the matter, ends of justice
will be met if the following directions is issued:
The
respondent authority shall consider the pending representation of
the petitioner as expeditiously as possible taking into
consideration the Government Resolution and the qualification of the
petitioner.
With
above observation petition stands disposed of accordingly.
[K.S.Jhaveri,J.]
*Himansu
Top