Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/641/1993 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 641 of 1993
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1033 of 1993
To
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1037 of 1993
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1039 of 1993
To
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1045 of 1993
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1047 of 1993
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1050 of 1993
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1060 of 1993
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1061 of 1993
To
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1111 of 1993
=================================================
JANSHIKSHAN
NILAYAM KARMACHARI MANDAL & 2 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
DISTRICT
DEVELOPMENT OFFICER & 2 - Respondent(s)
=================================================
Appearance
:
NOTICE
SERVED for Petitioner(s) : 1 - 3.
MR RK MISHRA for Respondent(s) :
1 - 2.
MRS SANGEETA N PAHWA for Respondent(s) : 1,
MRS. MANISHA
LAVKUMAR SHAH AGP in SCAs-641, 1033 TO 1037, 1039-1045, 1047, 1050,
1060 1071; MRS. KRINA CALLA in SCAs 1078 TO 1111 AGP for
Respondent(s) : 3,
MR AMIT M PANCHAL for Respondent(s) :
3,
=================================================
CORAM:
HONOURABLE
THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
Date
: 18/03/2011
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA)
A
number of persons, including the petitioners, were appointed on
ad-hoc basis under the Adult Education Scheme for a fixed period.
The Scheme of Adult Education was subsequently closed. This was
noticed by the Court on 8th March 2011, and therefore, parties were
directed to state whether the writ petitions have become infructuous
or not. On the said date, nobody pursued the case on behalf of the
petitioners, though counsel for the State was present.
Today
when the cases are taken up, nobody appeared on behalf of the
petitioners to press the petitions. Learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the State would contend that the Scheme is over, therefore,
the matters have become infructuous. In fact, similar matters were
taken up and decided by this Court in Special Civil Application
No.1499 of 1987 and others disposed of by a Division Bench on 25th
September 1992. Therein, the Court without interfering with the
matters, left the matter open to the State to decide whether they
should frame any scheme for absorption of those petitioners.
Subsequently, similar matters have also been disposed of by common
order dated 16th June 2008 in Special Civil Application No.9262 of
1994. At that stage, these cases could not be taken up and were left
out, and now the same have been listed.
In
view of the stand as taken by the State, and in absence of any
objection, and as no case is made out on behalf of the employees to
allow them for years together, even after the closure of the scheme,
no relief can be granted in these applications. All the writ
petitions are accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged. No costs.
(S.J.
MUKHOPADHAYA, C.J.)
(J.B.
PARDIWALA, J.)
[sn
devu] pps
Top