Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
LPA/1922/2010 2/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 1922 of 2010
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 871 of 1995
With
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 9123 of 2010
In
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 1922 of 2010
With
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 1923 of 2010
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2902 of 1995
With
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 9125 of 2010
In
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 1923
of 2010
=========================================================
BHARATKUMAR
DEVKARANBHAI PATEL & 4 - Appellant(s)
Versus
DIST
PRIMARY EDUCATION OFFICER - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
RA MISHRA for
Appellant(s) : 1 - 5.
None for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT
Date
: 26/08/2010
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE)
These
appeals arise out of a judgment and order rendered by the learned
Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 871/1995 and allied
matters, on 20.09.2004. The said petitions were preferred by the
present appellants to challenge the action of the respondents of not
giving employment to them though their names figured at serial Nos.8,
9, 10, 12 & 16 respectively in the select list. The grievance of
the appellants is that there were six vacancies of Education
Inspectors for direct recruit at the time when the advertisement was
given. However, the advertisement was for filling up 18 vacancies and
the respondent-authorities gave appointment upto serial No.6 and then
stopped giving appointment. Therefore, the petitions.
2. Learned
advocate Mr.Mishra for the appellants submitted that the
respondent-authorities have not adopted a transparent course of
action and have not disclosed the backlog of the vacancy.
3. The
learned Single Judge, after considering various contentions raised by
the petitioners, dismissed the petitions holding that the petitioners
do not enjoy any right of the appointment only because they are
placed on the select list. In this context, reliance was placed on
the decision in the case of Government of Orissa, through
Secretary, Commerce and Transport Department, Bhubaneshwar v.
Haraprasad Das and Ors, (1998)1 SCC 487.
4.
We are in agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge.
We do not find any reason for interfering with the judgment impugned
in the appeals. The appeals do not merit acceptance. They, therefore,
must fail and are dismissed.
Order
on Civil Application Nos. 9123/2010 & 9125/2010
These
Civil Applications stand dismissed in light of dismissal of the main
appeals.
[A.L.Dave,J.]
[S.R.Brahmbhatt,J.]
(patel)
Top