Gujarat High Court
Popatlal Ratanlal Dhundhia vs State Of Gujarat on 16 September, 2025
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4675/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 4675 of
2025
In R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2203 of 2025
(F/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 27278 of 2025
With
R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2203 of 2025
In
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 775 of 2025
==========================================================
POPATLAL RATANLAL DHUNDHIA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.BHAVYARAJ GOHIL with SAMARTH S AMIN(8897) for the Applicant(s)
No. 1
MS. HETAL PATEL, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE
SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 16/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL) The delay caused in filing the Misc. Civil Application has been explained to the satisfaction of the Court. The delay condonation application is hereby allowed. The delay in filing the review application is condoned. The Office shall allot regular number to the appeal.
On the merits of the review application, it is pertinent to note that the submissions made by the learned counsel Page 1 of 3 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 04:05:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/4675/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/09/2025 undefined appearing for the applicant on the grounds of review are three folds. It was argued that at Page No. '54' of the paper book, the petitioner had appended the Schedule Tribe Community certificate of the year 1979, which was part of the service record. The contention is that the entry of the said certificate could not have been made in the service book, had it not been produced at the time of recruitment. The submissions made for the first time in the review application cannot be entertained for the simple reason that we have noted in the judgment under review that the petitioner was twice promoted in the year 1992 and 2003 to the post of Head Constable and Assistant Sub Inspector; respectively, as a general category candidate. For the first time in the writ petition filed in the year 2011, the petitioner has sought for a direction to command the respondent to treat the deemed date of his promotion to the post of Head Constable with effect from 01.04.1989, on refusal by the respondents. The fact that the petitioner had been promoted not only in the year 1992 but also in 2003, treating him as a general category candidate itself shows that there was nothing on the service book of the petitioner which would establish that the petitioner was a candidate belonging to the Schedule Tribe Page 2 of 3 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 04:05:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/4675/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/09/2025 undefined category. As no dispute has been raised by the petitioner by approaching a Court of law about his promotion of the year 1992 till the year 2011, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner about the error in the judgment under review, being an error apparent on the face of the record, is found to be misconceived. The other two submissions pertaining to the order dated 07.01.2023 passed by the writ Court asking the respondent to produce the original service book and the allegations that the respondents were shifting their stand during the course of the proceedings, are not appreciable for the simple reason that rehearing in the nature of review is impermissible. The review application is accordingly rejected, being devoid of merits. No order as to costs.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ ) (D.N.RAY,J) VARSHA DESAI Page 3 of 3 Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 04:05:53 IST 2025