Gujarat High Court High Court

Kanjibhai vs State on 16 April, 2010

Gujarat High Court
Kanjibhai vs State on 16 April, 2010
Author: Ks Jhaveri,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/1640/1993	 3/ 3	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1640 of 1993
 

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

 

KANJIBHAI
ISHWARBHAI PATEL - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MRS
KETTY A MEHTA for
Petitioner(s) : 1, 
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) :
1, 
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 2 -
3. 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 16/04/2010 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

1. The
petitioner herein has challenged the impugned termination order dated
02.02.1993 terminating the present petitioner from service and has
further prayed to direct the respondents to continue the petitioner
in service as permanent employee of the respondent no. 2 Mandal in
ITI of Lanava.

2. The
issue involved in this petition is squarely covered by a decision of
this court in the case of Mamtaben N Patel vs. Gujarat Vidhyapith &
Others passed on 20.10.1997 in Special Civil Application No. 3778 of
1992 wherein the operative portion reads as under:

7.
It is not in dispute that the petitioner worked for all these years
in respondent no. 3 institution, and he was appointed on the post of
Draughtsman (Civil) after he was selected in the open selection. It
is also not in dispute that private I.T.Is are getting 100 per cent
grant in aid from the Government. The counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner is willing to go anywhere if is absorbed
in another institution. In view of these facts it is certainly
within the competence of the respondent no. 3 to direct absorption of
the petitioner in an institution where the post in question is
vacant. The institution has no say in the matter as it is receiving
100 per cent grant in aid from the Government. Respondent no. 3 has
all the prerogative to send an employee who has been declared surplus
from one institution to another institution which is receiving
grant-in-aid. In view of this position I consider it proper to
dispose of this special civil application with the direction to the
respondent no. 3 that the case of the petitioner for absorption on
the post of Draughtsman (Civil) in another institution where post is
lying vacant shall be considered within a period of three months from
the date of receipt of copy of this order and appropriate order be
passed. In case the petitioner cannot be absorbed in another
institution, respondent no. 3 shall pass a reasoned order and copy of
the same may be sent to the petitioner by registered post A.D. In
that case liberty is granted to the petitioner for revival of this
special civil application till the matter of absorption of the
petitioner in another institution is decided, the interim relief
granted by this Court shall continue to operate. Subject to the
aforesaid direction, petition stands disposed of. Rule discharged.
No order as to costs.

3. In
the present case, interim relief was granted by this court on
06.04.1993 till further orders. Since the issue involved in the
present petition is similar to the aforesaid case, the present
petition shall also be governed by the aforesaid decision.

4. Accordingly,
this petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondent no.
3 that the case of the petitioner for absorption on the post of
Supervisor Instructor in another institution where post is lying
vacant shall be considered within a period of three months from the
date of receipt of copy of this order and appropriate order be
passed. In case the petitioner cannot be absorbed in another
institution, respondent no. 3 shall pass a reasoned order and copy of
the same may be sent to the petitioner by registered post A.D. In
that case liberty is granted to the petitioner for revival of this
special civil application. Till the matter of absorption of the
petitioner in another institution is decided, the interim relief
granted by this Court shall continue to operate. Rule discharged.
No order as to costs

(K.S.

JHAVERI, J.)

Divya//

   

Top