Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
LPA/2757/2010 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 2757 of 2010
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 11029 of 2010
=========================================================
SANJAYKUMAR
PURSHOTTAMBHAI SOLANKI - Appellant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
SP MAJMUDAR for
Appellant(s) : 1,MR PP MAJMUDAR for Appellant(s) : 1,
MR NJ SHAH,
AGP for Respondent(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE J.C.UPADHYAYA
Date
: 17/01/2011
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL)
The
present appeal arises against the order dated 17.09.2010 passed by
the learned Single Judge of this court in Special Civil Application
No.11029/10, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the
petition, but refrained himself from imposing the cost.
We
have heard Mr.Majmudar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant.
The
contention is that the original petitioner had approached for
rechecking of marks to one Shri Bhatia, who was the Chairman and he
declined as the period was over. It is the contention that the
period is to be counted from the date on which he received the
application and not the date on which the result of passing the
examination was published and therefore, this Court may consider the
matter at least to that extent. On the aspect of reassessment and
finding the original petitioner qualified, Mr.Majmudar fairly
conceded that he would not be pressing such prayer.
In
our view, there is no proof produced on record and as observed by
the learned Single Judge, even if the statement is to be tested
further, nothing prevented the petitioner from sending the
application by registered Post or otherwise, which is admittedly not
done in the present matter. If the period is over and further the
petitioner has participated at the interview process and thereafter
having failed, the ultimate view taken by the learned Single Judge
cannot be said to be erroneous.
Hence,
no case is made out for interference. Therefore, the appeal is
dismissed.
(JAYANT
PATEL, J.)
(J.C.
UPADHYAYA, J.)
*bjoy
Top