Gujarat High Court High Court

Bahvinkumar vs State on 16 October, 2008

Gujarat High Court
Bahvinkumar vs State on 16 October, 2008
Author: Ks Jhaveri,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/7815/2008	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7815 of 2008
 

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


 

BAHVINKUMAR
SHANKARBHAI PATEL - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance : 
MR
SP MAJMUDAR for Petitioner(s) : 1, 
MR JK SHAH,
ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 1, 
NOTICE SERVED for
Respondent(s) : 1 - 2. 
MS SEJAL K MANDAVIA for Respondent(s) :
2, 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 16/10/2008 

 

 
ORAL
ORDER

1. Draft
amendment granted.

2. The
petitioner has challenged the decision of the respondent authority
rejecting the request for compassionate appointment, vide Order dated
20.11.2007.

3. Father
of the petitioner who was serving as Talati-cum-Mantri in Chikhli
Gram Panchayat died in harness. The petitioner therefore made an
application for compassionate appointment. Since the request was
rejected the petitioner had approached this Court wherein this Court
directed the authority to reconsider the application according to the
policy prevailing at the relevant time. Therefore the respondent
authority again rejected the said application which resulted into
filing of this petition.

4. As
a result of hearing and perusal of the records, it is found that the
respondent authority has considered the matter in detail. The matter
was considered in accordance with the prevailing policy existing at
the relevant time. The authority cannot bypass any criterion laid
down in the policy while considering the case of compassionate
appointment. Learned Advocate for the petitioner is not in a
position to point out anything to show that the authority has not
considered the matter in accordance with the policy prevailing at the
relevant point of time.

5. I
therefore do not find any merits in the petition. The petition is
therefore rejected. Notice is discharged with no order as to costs.

(K.S.

Jhaveri, J.)

(Caroline)

   

Top