Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/841/2011 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 841 of 2011
=========================================================
MANOJ
JAGDISHCHANDRA VYAS - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR.
A.S. SUPEHIA FOR MR. IS SUPEHIA
for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR. PRANAV TRIVEDI, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER
for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HON'BLE
SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI
Date
: 07/02/2011
ORAL
ORDER
1. This
petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been
filed with the following prayers:-
“10) The
petitioner, therefore, prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased
to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, direction of order:
A) Directing
the respondent to decide the representation dt.23.7.2008 of the
petitioner in the light of the Supreme Court judgment dt.19.10.2010
delivered in SLP No.15498/2010(Annexure-E).
B) During
the pendency and final disposal of this petition, the Respondent may
be directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner.
C) To
grant such and further relief as may be deemed fit and proper.”
2. Briefly
stated the case of the petitioner is that the father of the
petitioner, who was serving as Junior Clerk, under the District
Panchayat, Kutch, expired on 14.09.2005, while in harness. The
petitioner made an application for grant of appointment on
compassionate grounds on 29.09.2005, which came to be rejected by the
respondent on 29.08.2006, on the ground that the petitioner did not
possess the requisite educational qualifications, as required by
Notification dated 19.07.2006. The second ground for rejection was
that the petitioner was purportedly living separately from the
family. The petitioner made representation dated 23.07.2008 to the
respondent, clarifying that he was not living separately, but was
living with the family. He also brought to the notice of the
respondent that the Notification dated 19.07.2006 would not be
applicable in the case of the petitioner, as his father expired on
14.09.2005 and the application was made by the petitioner on
29.09.2005. This representation is still pending with the respondent,
therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court.
3. At
the very outset, Mr. A.S. Supehia, learned advocate for the
petitioner states that the interest of justice would be met, if the
respondent is directed to consider and decide representation dated
23.07.2008 made by the petitioner, within a stipulated period of
time, in light of the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 19.10.2010,
delivered in Special Leave Petition No.15498 of 2010. It is further
submitted that a copy of the said judgment would be supplied to the
respondent by the petitioner.
4. Upon
the above statement being made by the learned advocate for the
petitioner, the following order is passed:-
(a) The
respondent is directed to consider and decide representation dated
23.07.2008 made by the petitioner, in light of the judgment of the
Supreme Court, if a copy of the same is supplied by the petitioner to
the respondent, within a period of two weeks from today.
(b) The
decision upon the representation shall be taken by the respondent,
within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order.
It
is clarified that while passing this order, the Court has not entered
into the merits of the case.
5. The
petition is disposed of, in the above terms.
(Smt.
Abhilasha Kumari, J.)
Safir*
Top