Gujarat High Court
SCA/10324/1996 of HARIBA R SANA Vs STATE OF GUJARAT on 27 December 2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10324 of 1996 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be
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.
Issues
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10324 of 1996
For Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
=========================================================1[Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed ]to see the judgment ?1[Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed ]to see the judgment ?
2To be referred to the Reporter or not ?3[Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy ]of the judgment ?3[Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy ]of the judgment ?
Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the of law as to the interpretation of the 4constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?
5[Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ]??
=========================================================
HARIBA R SANA & 6 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR AS SUPEHIAfor Petitioner(s) : Shri Mihir Joshi, Additional Advocate General with Ms. Maithily Mehta, AGP for Respondent(s) : 1 - 2.=========================================================
CORAM :HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
Date : 27/12/2006
ORAL JUDGMENT
By way of the present Special Civil
Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the respective petitioners who were at the relevant time serving as 2[nd] Grade Head
2/5JUDGMENT
Constables in Head Constable Grade No. 11,, Vav, District-Surat, have prayed for an appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the result of the written examination declared on 9.12.1996. A further prayer is also made for directing the respondents to apply 14% reservation for Scheduled Tribe candidates in State Reserve Police Force Group No.11 instead of 30% and promote the general category candidates accordingly to the posts of First Grade Head Constables as per the list dated 18.6.1993. A further consequential prayer is also made with regard to seniority.
2. It is not in dispute that the entire petition is based on the premise that the reservation provided for promotion to the post of 1[st] Grade Head Constable was more than 51% and for that purpose, Shri AS Supehia, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners has relied upon one Government Resolution dated 22[nd] April
1983.
3. Shri Mihir Joshi, learned Additional Advocate General appears on behalf of the respondents. Relying upon the affidavit-in-reply as well as resolution dated 1[st] January 1987, he has made a categorical statement that so far as Class-III promotional post is concerned the reservation would be for only two categories, i.e., Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes; that so far as Scheduled Castes candidates are concerned, the reservation would be 4 per cent; and for Scheduled Tribes candidates the reservation would be 40% and based on this promotions to the post of 1[st]Grade Head Constables were made. In view of the above categorical statements made by the learned Additional Advocate General on instructions from one Shri V.J. Simariyawala, Deputy Superintendent of Police, SRP Group-11 that the percentage of reservation for promotional post of Class-III
4/5JUDGMENT
would be as stated above, i.e., 4% and 40% only. Therefore, the contention on behalf of the petitioners that there was reservation of more than 51% cannot be accepted. In view of the above categorical statement made by the learned Additional Advocate General, Shri AS Supehia, learned advocate has submitted that the grievance of the petitioners would not survive.
4. As stated above, the entire petition is based upon the fact according to the petitioners that reservation for promotional post of 1[st] Grade Head Constable would be more than 51%. However, it has been found other way round. There is, therefore, no substance in the present Special Civil Application. No other submission has been made.
For the reasons stated above, the
SCA/10324/19965/5JUDGMENT
petition fails and it is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No costs.
[ M.R. Shah, J. ]
rmr.