Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/102/2011 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 102 of 2011
=========================================================
R
M CHAUHAN - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT THROUGH ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
PARESH UPADHYAY for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR. MAULIK G. NANAVATI, ASST. GOVERNMENT
PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) : 2 -
3.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HON'BLE
SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI
Date
: 12/01/2011
ORAL
ORDER
1. This
petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been
filed with the following prayers:-
“7. The
petitioner respectfully prays that, on the basis of the facts and
circumstances as mentioned hereinabove and which may be urged at the
time of hearing, the Honourable Court may be pleased to issue a writ
of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the
respondent authorities and may be pleased to:-
(A) quash
and set aside the decision of the respondent authorities of denying
the appointment to the petitioner on the post of Police
Sub-Inspector, as communicated vide letter dated 6.12.2010,
Annexure-A to this petition, and
(B) direct
the respondent authorities to give appointment to the petitioner on
the post of Police Sub-Inspector with effect from 28.11.2010 with all
consequential benefits, and
(C) award
the cost of the petition, and
(D) pending
admission and final disposal of this petition the Honourable Court
may be pleased to stay the impugned decision of the respondent
authorities as contained in letter dated 6.12.2010, Annexure-A to
this petition, and
(E) Pending
admission and final disposal of this petition, the Honourable Court
may further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to give
appointment to the petitioner on the post of Police Sub-Inspector
pursuant to his selection, and
(F) grant
any other relief or pass any other order which the Honourable Court
may consider as just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the
case.”
2. The
case of the petitioner is that he has been denied appointment on the
post of Police Sub-Inspector (Unarmed) though his name had been
included in the Select List, only on the ground that an F.I.R. had
been filed against him, without considering that the petitioner has
now been acquitted by judgment dated 18.02.2010 of the Trial Court,
rendered in Criminal Case No.495/2009.
3. Mr.
Paresh Upadhyay, learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the
interest of justice would be met, if the petitioner is permitted to
make a representation to respondent No.2, within a period of two
weeks from today and the said respondent may be directed to consider
and decide the same, expeditiously.
4. Upon
the above statement being made by the learned advocate for the
petitioner, the following order is passed:-
(a) The
petitioner is permitted to make a representation to respondent No.2,
within a period of two weeks from today.
(b) In
the event that the petitioner makes a representation to respondent
No.2, within the stipulated period of time, respondent No.2 shall
consider and decide the same, taking into consideration the judgment
of acquittal passed by the concerned Criminal Court.
(C) The
decision shall be taken, as expeditiously as possible and not later
than a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order.
5. The
petition is disposed of, in the above terms.
Direct
Service of this order is permitted.
(Smt.
Abhilasha Kumari, J.)
Safir*
Top