Gujarat High Court
SCA/3319/1985 of ROSELIN A ENGINEER Vs DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION on 18 November 1997
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 3319 of 1985 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE S.K.KESHOTE ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 3319 of 1985
For Approval and Signature:
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE S.K.KESHOTE
============================================================
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgements?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgement?
4. Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder?
5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge?
-------------------------------------------------------------- ROSELIN A ENGINEERVersus DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR KV SHELAT for Petitioner MS HARSHA DEVYANI for Respondent No. 1, 2 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE S.K.KESHOTE Date of decision: 18/11/97
ORAL JUDGEMENT
1. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondents have committed a serious illegality in not granting approval to the petitioner for additional classes in Standards II, III and VII from June, 1984.
2. This Court has not protected the petitioner by grant of interim relief. The learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to show whether after the declination of permission for starting the additional classes aforesaid it has applied fresh for approval for starting of the aforesaid classes or not. After so many years, I do not find any justification now to decide this matter on merits. It is always open to the petitioner to apply fresh for grant of approval to start the additional classes in the school and if such an application is moved it has to be decided in accordance with law.
3. In the result, though this special civil application is dismissed but it is made clear that it shall be open to the petitioner to apply fresh, if it considers necessary for approval to start the additional classes in the school and if such an application is moved then the competent authority shall decide the same in accordance with law. The special civil application is dismissed. Rule is discharged subject to the aforesaid directions with no order as to costs.
**********
zgs/-