Posted On by &filed under Gujarat High Court, High Court.


Gujarat High Court
====================================== vs None For on 29 January, 2010
Author: D.H.Waghela,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/753/2010	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 753 of 2010
 

With


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 754 of 2010
 

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

SUREKHABEN
RANJITBHAI PATELIA 

 

Versus
 

DISTRICT
PRIMARY EDUCATION OFFICER 

 

====================================== 
Appearance
: 
MR MA KHARADI for
Petitioner. 
None for
Respondent. 
======================================
 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA
		
	

 

Date
: 29/01/2010 

 

ORAL
ORDER

Learned
counsel for the petitioners has insisted on blaming the authority
making the impugned order dated 1.1.2010, on the basis that words
were put into the mouth of the petitioners to record their admission
that they were appointed in the Scheduled Tribe category; while no
such representation or an averment on oath in the present petition to
substantiate such allegation could be pointed out. On the other
hand, the petitioners’ earlier petitions challenging cancellation of
their Scheduled Tribe certificates have been rejected by order dated
3.11.2009 and that order is also stated to have been challenged in
Letters Patent Appeals. Learned counsel, Mr.Kharadi admitted that
those Letters Patent Appeals were so far not pressed for any interim
relief. Thus, while the orders cancelling the Schedule Tribe
certificates of the petitioners stand, they have made repeated
attempts at preventing their termination from service on the basis of
such cancellation. It was vehemently argued by learned counsel,
Mr.Kharadi, that, even as the Letters Patent Appeals of the
petitioners were not even circulated for admission or urgent orders,
it was for the authorities to find out from their record that the
petitioners were not appointed against any reserved posts but they
were appointed as general category candidates. Otherwise, the
opportunity of hearing clearly appears to have been given to the
petitioners before making the impugned order discharging them from
service, but that opportunity appears to have been used only for
attributing motives and making allegations of putting words into the
mouth of the petitioners. Therefore, these petitions clearly appear
to be calculated to abuse the process of Court, and hence, summarily
dismissed.

(D.H.Waghela,
J.)

*malek

   

Top


Leave a Reply

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

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

93 queries in 0.159 seconds.