Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/11444/2010 4/ 4 ORDER
THE
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 11444 of 2010
=========================================================
MAHENDRAKUMAR
DASHRATHLAL JOSHI - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
YH VYAS for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
Ms.MANISHA NARSINGHANI, ASST GOVERNMENT PLEADER
for Respondent(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) : 2 -
3.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
Date
: 21/09/2010
ORAL
ORDER
Mahendrakumar
Dashrathlal Joshi is before this Court, motivated by the orders
passed by this Court in Civil Application No.1014 of 2009 in Letters
Patent Appeal No.107 of 2009 in Special Civil Application No.5285 of
2008 dated 16th December 2009, whereby the Division Bench
of this Court consisting of myself and Hon’ble Mr.Justice J.C.
Upadhyaya, granted interim relief. Following that, in other petitions
being Special Civil Application No.1388 of 2009 and other group
matters the learned Single Judge (Coram: D.H. Waghela, J.) granted
similar relief by order dated 4th February 2010.
Similarly, in Special Civil Application No.4398 of 2010 the Court
(Coram: A.L. Dave, J.) granted similar relief by order dated 30th
June 2010. The petitioner is before this Court praying for the
following reliefs:
9(A) This
Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or a writ in the
nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction,
holding and declaring that the action of the respondents of
termination of services of the petitioner is arbitrary, illegal,
harsh, oppressive and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India.
(B) Pending
the admission, hearing and final disposal of the present petition,
this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to
consider the case of the petitioner for employment on the post or
work done by the petitioner prior to his termination and to direct
them to re-induct the petitioner in service at par with other cases
of Special Civil Application No.4398/ 2010, Special Civil Application
No.3427/ 2010 and Letters Patent Appeal No.107/ 2009.
2. Such
a practice is required to be deprecated and it is accordingly
deprecated. This petitioner was before this Court by filing Special
Civil Application No.8225 of 2006, which was decided by this Court on
18th September 2006. He accepted the verdict of this
Court. He did not challenge the same by filing Letters Patent Appeal
along with others, who challenged the said decision, for example the
petitioner of Special Civil Application No.5285 of 2008 filed Letters
Patent Appeal No.107 of 2009 with Civil Application No.1014 of 2009,
praying for interim relief which was granted by this Court by order
dated 16th December 2009. Once he has accepted the verdict
of the Court (learned Single Judge) dated 18th September
2006, it is too late in a day to come to this Court and challenge
the same. Sitting on the fence and deciding the future course of
action on the basis of the outcome is required to be discouraged.
Besides,
learned advocate Mr.Y.H. Vyas could not point out that the petitioner
in Special Civil Application No.1388 of 2009 and other group matters
wherein the Court granted relief by order dated 4th
February 2010, and the petitioners of Special Civil Application
No.4398 of 2010, wherein the Court granted interim relief by order
dated 30th June 2010, were the petitioners in group of
petitions which were decided by this Court by judgement and order
dated 18th September 2006.
In
the result, this petition is dismissed. However, dismissal of this
petition should not be made the basis by the authorities for not
granting him the benefit which may be granted by virtue of the
judgement of this Court to other similarly situated persons.
(RAVI
R. TRIPATHI, J.)
karim
Top