Gujarat High Court High Court

Prajapati vs Registrar on 1 February, 2011

Gujarat High Court
Prajapati vs Registrar on 1 February, 2011
Author: Mr.S.J.Mukhopadhaya,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice K.M.Thaker,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/795/2011	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 795 of 2011
 

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

 

PRAJAPATI
DASHRATHBHAI KEVALDAS - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

REGISTRAR
(RECRUTIMENT) RECRUITMENT CELL - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
PARTY-IN-PERSON
for
Petitioner 
None for
Respondent 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			THE CHIEF JUSTICE         MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

 HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER     1st February 2011
		
	

 

 ORAL
ORDER

(Per
: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA)

The
matter relates to appointment to the post of Addl. District Judge by
direct recruitment. After the written test, the petitioner having not
called for interview, preferred this writ
petition. The main ground taken was that he performed well in the
examination.

On
28th
January 2011, when the matter was taken up, as the petitioner was
appearing in person, he was asked to appear on 1st
February 2011 [ie.,
today] at
2:30 pm.,
in chamber for perusal of his answer-books so that he can look into
the transparency in the matter of selection made by the High Court.
The Registrar [Recruitment]
was directed to keep the Answer-books of the petitioner ready for his
perusal. Both the Answer-books of the petitioner Answer-Book No.I
[Criminal]
& Answer-Book No. II [Civil]
were produced for perusal of the Court. From those Answer-books, we
learnt that the petitioner could secured only 30 marks out of 100
marks in 1st
paper and 52 marks out of 100 marks in the 2nd
paper. Even if, 20% marks are given by way of grace on the ground
that some of the questions were lengthy, the petitioner could not
come within the zone of consideration; having received much less than
60% of the qualifying marks. In this background, no relief can be
granted. The writ
petition stands disposed of. No costs.

{S.J
Mukhopadhaya, CJ.}

{K.M
Thaker, J.}

Prakash*

   

Top