SCA/2442/1995 of DHARMENDRASINH K GOHIL Vs STATE OF GUJART on 11 December 1995

Issues

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?

DHARMENDRASINH K GOHIL

vs

STATE OF GUJART

Appearence: MR RJ OZA for Petitioner MR DA BAMBHANIA for RespondentAor Petitioner MR DA BAMBHANIA for RespondentA for Petitioner MR DA BAMBHANIA fr RespondentA for Petitioner MR DA BAMBHANIA for RespondentA for Petitioner MRDA BAMBHANIA for RespondentA for Petitioner MR DA BAMBHANIA for RespondentA foPetitioner MR DA BAMBHANIA for RespondentA for Petitioner MR DA BAMBHANIA forRespondentA for Petitioner MR DA BAMBHANIA for RespondentA for Petitioner MR DBAMBHANIA for RespondentA for Petitioner MR DA BAMBHANIA for RespondentA foretitioner MR DA BAMBHANIA for RespondentA for Petitioner MR DA BAMBHANIA for RspondentA for Petitioner MR DA BAMBHANIA for RespondentA for Petitioner MR DAAMBHANIA for RespondentA for Petitioner MR DA BAMBHANIA for RespondentA for Peitioner MR DA BAMBHANIA for RespondentA for Petitioner MR DA BAMBHANIA for ResondentA for Petitioner MR DA BAMBHANIA for RespondentA for Petitioner MR DA BABHANIA for RespondentA for Petitioner MR DA BAMBHANIA for RespondentA for Petiioner MR DA BAMBHANIA for d ORAL JUDGEMENT

��Rule. Mr.Bambhania appears and waives service of rule on behalf of the respondents. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this matter is taken up to day for final hearing.

��This petition is filed against the action by which adverse remarks were made in the service records of the petitioner for the period between April 1 1991 and February 15, 1992. It appears that the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Collector, Bhavnagar District, Bhavnagar, respondent no.2 herein. The respondent no.2 by his order dt. February 3, 1994 rejected the appeal on the ground that as per the the remarks made by the officer who had written confidential report, adverse entries were justified. He on his part did not consider the appeal filed by the petitioner and has dismissebythe petitioner and has dismisseby the petitioner and has dismisseby the petitiner and has dismisseby the petitioner and has dismisseby the petitioner and hadismisseby the petitioner and has dismisseby the petitioner and has dismissebthe petitioner and has dismisseby the petitioner and has dismisseby the petitoner and has dismisseby the petitioner and has dismisseby the petitioner and hs dismisseby the petitioner and has dismisseby the petitioner and has dismissey the petitioner and has dismisseby the petitioner and has dismisseby the petiioner and has dismisseby the petitioner and has dismisseby the petitioner andas dismisseby the petitioner and has dismisseby the petitioner and has dismissby the petitioner and has dismisseby the petitioner and has dismisseby the pettioner and has dismisseby the petitioner and has dismisseby the petitioner andhas dismisseby the petitioner and has dismisseby the petitioner and has dismiseby the petitioner and has dismisseby t by the appellate authority, the petitioner preferred appeal before the State Government but the State Government has disposed of the same on the ground that nothing at their end was required to be done. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order has approached this court.

��Various contentions were raised by the learned counsel

for the petitioner. In my opinion, it is not necessary to deal with all the contentions. In view of the fact that the appellate authority, namely, the respondent has not considered all the grounds on which the petitioner felt himself aggrieved by the order passed by the officer who had put the adverse remarks against the petitioner, it is directed that the second respondent will hear the petitioner and pass appropriate order in accordance with law after recording reasons. The petition is accordingly disposed of by making rule made absoluteonis accordingly disposed of by making rule made absoluteon is accordingly dispoed of by making rule made absoluteon is accordingly disposed of by making rulemade absoluteon is accordingly disposed of by making rule made absoluteon is acordingly disposed of by making rule made absoluteon is accordingly disposed o by making rule made absoluteon is accordingly disposed of by making rule madeabsoluteon is accordingly disposed of by making rule made absoluteon is accordngly disposed of by making rule made absoluteon is accordingly disposed of byaking rule made absoluteon is accordingly disposed of by making rule made absouteon is accordingly disposed of by making rule made absoluteon is accordinglydisposed of by making rule made absoluteon is accordingly disposed of by makinrule made absoluteon is accordingly disposed of by making rule made absoluteois accordingly disposed of by making rule made absoluteon is accordingly dispsed of by makinof ent with no order as to costs. I may clarify that the action of not promoting the petitioner was sought to be justified by placing reliance on the affidavit filed by the Chitnish to Collector, Bhavnagar, but I am not expressing any opinion on that aspect. The petition is accordingly disposed of. The respondent no.2 will decide the appeal afresh after hearing the petitioner as expeditiously as possible preferably within eight weeks from the date of the receipt of the writ of this court. DS.

*****