Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
LPA/1002/2010 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 1002 of 2010
In
CIVIL
APPLICATION-FOR INTERIM RELIEF No. 3719 of 2010
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5432 of 2009
With
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 4732 of 2010
In
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 1002 of 2010
======================================
JAYESHKUMAR
BAHECHARDAS PATEL - Appellant(s)
Versus
GUJARAT
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION - Respondent(s)
======================================
Appearance
:
MR PARESH UPADHYAY for
Appellant(s) : 1,
MR DIPAK D SHUKLA for Respondent(s) :
1,
======================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH
Date
: 03/05/2010
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA)
This
appeal, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, is preferred from the
order dated 27.04.2010 of learned Single Judge of this Court in
Civil Application for Interim Relief No.3719 of 2010 of the
appellant, even as the main Special
Civil Application No.5432 of 2009 of the appellant is
pending and fixed for hearing on 4th May, 2010. By
consent of the parties and in peculiar facts and circumstances, the
appeal is heard for final disposal at the admission stage.
It
was submitted by learned counsel, Mr.Upadhyay, that the interviews
held by the opponent herein are being concluded tomorrow resulting
into permanent loss of opportunity for the appellant to appear at
the interview, even if he were to succeed in the main petition. It
was further submitted that the refusal to grant interim relief,
subject to all the necessary conditions and clarifications, amounted
to rejection of the main petition in so far as the petition would
become practically infructuous after the last opportunity of
appearing at the interview is lost.
Learned
counsel, Mr.Shukla, appearing for the respondent, vehemently argued
that the appellant was caught in a copy case and even the marks of
his written examination were not assessed on that account.
Therefore, even without assessment of the marks of the written test
and without securing qualifying marks for the interview, the
appellant could not be given an opportunity of appearing at the
interview. He also submitted that in case of a special direction of
this Court in the main petition, the respondent could arrange
special interview for the appellant if he succeeds in the main
petition, in spite of the fact that the Expert Committee of the
respondent has already opined that the appellant appeared to have
indulged in unfair practice at the time of written examination.
Since
the main writ petition is pending before learned Single Judge and it
is required to be heard and expeditiously disposed on merits, it
would be unnecessary and improper for us to express any opinion on
the merits of the contentions of the parties in the main petition.
It was, however, clear that once the appellant were to lose the
opportunity of appearing at the interview, it would be extremely
difficult, if not impossible, to arrange an interview for the
appellant alone. As submitted and conceded by learned counsel,
Mr.Upadhyay, result of the appellant’s interview, if it is taken,
need not be declared, till the other hurdles of assessment of the
written papers, securing of qualifying marks and removal of his
dis-qualification on account of the copy case were successfully
crossed.
In
the above peculiar facts and circumstances, it appears to be
necessary and just to direct the respondent to allow the appellant
to appear at the interview and not to disclose result of the
interview till final hearing and disposal of the pending petition of
the appellant. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the
original Civil Application No.3719 of 2010 in Special
Civil Application No.5432 of 2009 is partly allowed with
the direction that the respondent authority shall permit the
appellant herein to appear at the interview to be held pursuant to
advertisement No.87/2006-07, subject to outcome of the main petition
and with the clarification that grant of such relief by way of
interim relief shall not influence either the interview in which the
appellant may be permitted to appear or the outcome of the main
petition which is pending before learned Single Judge. Civil
Application in the appeal would not survive in view of this order
and the appeal and the application stand disposed accordingly.
Direct service is permitted today.
(D.H.WAGHELA,J.)
(M.D.SHAH,J.)
radhan
Top