Loading...

Parmar vs Executive on 10 October, 2008

Gujarat High Court
Parmar vs Executive on 10 October, 2008
Author: Ks Jhaveri,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/350619/1987	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3506 of 1987
 

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

 

PARMAR
BABUBHAI REVABHAI - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER & 2 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
NIKHIL KARIEL for MR BP TANNA for
Petitioner(s) : 1, 
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 1 -
3. 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 10/10/2008 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

1. The
petitioner has prayed to declare that the petitioner is eligible for
appointment since 5.4.1985 and to direct the respondents to appoint
him permanently.

2. The
petitioner is B.Com. There was a Scheme of the Government,
established by Labour Department through Resolution
No.RMP-1080-1526/E dated 16.12.1980 for which he has applied. The
scheme has been emerged with a view to provide some assistance to the
unemployed youth in the State who are having income less than
Rs.4800/- per year of their total family. They have to work four days
in a month in response to the said allowance. The petitioner was
appointed by respondent for one year as Apprentice which came to an
end on 31.7.1987. The petitioner requested for permanent service
which came to be rejected. Thereafter various representations were
made, but there was no response and hence the present petition is
filed.

3. Affidavit
in reply has been filed. Para 6 of the reply reads as under:

It
is submitted that subsequently in July 1986 certain surplus staff was
to be absorbed as Junior Clerks under the respondents. It is
submitted that at that time the petitioner had also applied for
appointment to the post of a Junior Clerk but at the relevant time,
the petitioner was not qualified to be appointed tot he said post
because the petitioner was 32 years old whereas as per recruitment
rules for the post of a Junior Clerk, a candidate should be below 25
years of age. For candidates belonging to scheduled castes and
scheduled tribes, the age limit was 30 years. As the petitioner was
around 32 years old at relevant time, he was not fit for appointment
to the post of Junior Clerk and therefore he was not given
appointment to the post of a Junior Clerk.

4. Thus,
the petitioner was over-aged and therefore he could not be appointed
as per the rules at the relevant time. In that view of the matter the
petition cannot be entertained. Accordingly the petition is rejected.
Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.

[K.S.

JHAVERI, J.]

ar

   

Top

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information