Gujarat High Court High Court

Kamlesh vs Director on 10 May, 2010

Gujarat High Court
Kamlesh vs Director on 10 May, 2010
Author: Ks Jhaveri,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/10987/1998	 1/ 2	JUDGMENT 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10987 of 1998
 

 
For
Approval and Signature:  
 
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS
JHAVERI 
=========================================================

 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

1
		
		 
			 

Whether
			Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes
		
	

 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

2
		
		 
			 

To be
			referred to the Reporter or not ?
		
	

 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

3
		
		 
			 

Whether
			their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
		
	

 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

4
		
		 
			 

Whether
			this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
			interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
			made thereunder ?
		
	

 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

5
		
		 
			 

Whether
			it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
		
	

 

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

 

KAMLESH
MEGHRAJBHAI RABARI - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

DIRECTOR
OF PRIMARY EDUCATION & 2 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
BIREN A VAISHNAV for
Petitioner(s) : 1, 
MR JASWANT K SHAH AGP  for Respondent(s) :
1, 
RULE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 2, 
MR HS MUNSHAW for
Respondent(s) :
3, 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
		
	

 

			Date
: 10/05/2010 

 

 
ORAL
JUDGMENT

1.0 This
Court (Coram: Miss Justice R.M. Doshit), on 23.02.1999 has passed the
following order:

Heard
learned advocates for the respective parties on interim
relief.

It is not disputed that the petitioner received an intimation of his appointment as an Assistant Education Inspector on 17th July, 1998. It is also not disputed that he reported for duty on 23rd July, 1998 i.e. within seven days from the date of the receipt of the intimation. The petitioner, therefore, can not be said to have failed to comply with condition No. 6 of the order of his appointment and, prima-facie, there does not seem to be any justification in the respondents’ denying the petitioner the employment. By way of interim relief, it is, therefore, directed that the petitioner be permitted to report for duty and assume the charge of the post of Assistant Education Inspector pursuant to the appointment order dated 3rd July, 1998. The petitioner shall report for duty on or before 5th March, 1999. The appointment of the petitioner and the consequential right to seniority etc. will be subject to the result of this petition. Direct service is permitted.

2.0 In pursuance of the above order, the petitioner must have reported duty and must have continued in service. The matter is of the year 1998 and, therefore, at this stage, it would be in the interest of justice to dispose of this petition in terms of above interim order. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of the above interim order. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs.

(K.S.JHAVERI, J.)

niru*

   

Top