Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
MCA/2922/2010 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
MISC.CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 2922 of 2010
In
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 1666 of 2010
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.
16163 of 2007
=========================================================
MASRIBHAI
J SATRODIA THROUGH POA NIKHIL MASRIBHAI - Applicant
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 3 - Opponents
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
KB PUJARA for
Applicant.
MR KL PANDYA, ASSTT.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Opponent(s)
: 1,
None for Opponent(s) : 2 -
4.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA
Date
: 21/01/2011
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE)
Heard
learned advocate Mr.Pujara for the applicant.
2. The
prime submission of Mr.Pujara is that the Court has proceeded on a
presumption that the applicant – original petitioner – appellant was
appointed on ad hoc basis, whereas he was appointed as a temporary
employee, which is covered by Rule 25 of the Gujarat Civil Services
(Pension) Rules, 2002. The appointment letters were on record and,
therefore, the decision is taken on the basis of a mistake apparent
on the record by treating the petitioner-appellant as an ad hoc
employee.
3. We
will not be able to accept this contention for the reason that the
case of the petitioner from the very beginning has been that he was
appointed on ad hoc basis as is emerging from the averments made in
the petition. In fact, the order was dictated in the open Court in
presence of the advocate for the appellant and the Court recorded in
terms, it is not in dispute that the appellant was not a regularly
appointed employee. His appointment was purely ad hoc subject to his
passing GPSC examination . The scope for review is very limited and
the application, therefore, cannot be entertained.
4. At
this stage, learned advocate Mr.Pujara submitted that review may be
entertained to permit the appellant to withdraw the appeal as well as
the petition reserving liberty to file a fresh petition making
correct pleadings in the petition. He submitted that let the
petitioner/appellant may not suffer on account of a mistake of his
advocate.
5. It
may be noted that the scope for review is very limited and
entertaining a review petition for permitting the appellant to
withdraw the appeal and the petition is also not possible to be read
in last clause of the provisions relating to review of order. Apart
from this aspect, once the judgment is signed by the Division Bench,
the Court becomes functus officio and the review can be entertained
only when there is an error apparent on the face of the record. A
court, after signing the judgment, cannot entertain such a prayer for
withdrawing an appeal and a petition, which have already been
disposed of on merits. Therefore, this application cannot be
entertained for want of jurisdiction. The application fails and
stands rejected.
[A.L.Dave,J.]
[Bankim
N.Mehta,J.]
(patel)
Top