Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/9040/2010 2/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9040 of 2010
=========================================================
SUNILGIRI
HARIGIRI BAVA (GOSWAMI) - Petitioner
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondents
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
NK MAJMUDAR for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR NIKUNT RAVAL, ASSTT.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for
Respondents.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE
Date
: 10/08/2010
ORAL
ORDER
The
petitioner came to be appointed as a part-time water-bearer in the
year 1991. He applied for regularisation, which was denied and,
therefore, he lastly approached this Court with Special Civil
Application No.6109/2008. The said petition came to be disposed of by
this Court [Coram: Honourable Mr.Justice KS Jhaveri] by judgment
dated 5.9.2008, where, the Court observed thus:-
7.2 However,
as far as ground (iv) is concerned which relates to the sanctioned
post, Mr.Majmudar is not in a position to show that the post in
question is a sanctioned post by the competent authority. Therefore,
in absence of the sufficient materials on record to prove that the
post in question is a sanctioned post, the order of regularization
cannot be passed at this stage and the prayer as prayed for cannot be
granted at this stage.
8. However,
it is pertinent to observe that as and when the post in question is
sanctioned by the competent authority i.e. by the Office of the
Mamlatdar, Patan, the case of the petitioner shall be considered
looking to the past service of the petitioner in the said post. It
will also be open to the petitioner to apply before the competent
authority for considering his case for the sanctioned post.
2. The
petitioner again made a representation, which came to be rejected,
which is the subject mater of challenge in this petition.
3. Heard
learned advocate Mr.Suthar for the petitioner and learned A.G.P.
Mr.Raval for the respondents.
4. Mr.
Suthar submitted that in the last petition this Court had reserved a
right to the petitioner to ask for permanency/regularization if the
post is found to be a sanctioned one. The petitioner made a
representation which has been turned down without paying any heed to
the petitioner’s case.
5. Having
gone through the representation, the petitioner has not been able to
indicate that the post on which he was serving, was a sanctioned
post. He has only developed a new argument that because he was being
paid by the Collector out of contingency fund, Collector was
empowered to create such a sanctioned post and, therefore, the post
was sanctioned, for which there is no basis. That apart, it is a
misconception on the part of the learned advocate for the petitioner
that the petitioner’s right was reserved to make a representation if
the post is found to be sanctioned one. The Court, in the earlier
petition, in terms stated that there is no sanctioned post and the
petitioner may request the respondent-authorities to consider his
case if in future post is sanctioned. No such development is claimed
to have taken place and as such, no right has accrued to the
petitioner.
6. The
petition is, thus, found to be devoid of merits. It must fail and
stands dismissed.
[A.L.Dave,J.]
(patel)
Top