Hareshkumar Mansukhlal Vithlani vs State Of Gujarat
2021 Latest Caselaw 10822 Guj

       C/WPPIL/95/2021                                      ORDER DATED: 05/08/2021




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                         R/WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO. 95 of 2021
==========================================================
                     HARESHKUMAR MANSUKHLAL VITHLANI
                                  Versus
                            STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DHRUV P THAKKAR(9261) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR NEEL P LAKHANI(10679) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS SHRUTI PATHAK, AGP for the Opponent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

     CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM
           NATH
           and
           HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV

                            Date : 05/08/2021
                             ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH)

1. We have heard Shri Neel Lakhani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.Shruti Pathak, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State respondents.

2. By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution framed as a Public Interest Litigation, the petitioner who claims to have no personal interest in the matter and only espousing the cause of the disabled has prayed for appropriate directions to the respondent State and its authorities to strictly adhere to the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, by reserving 4% of the number of vacancies as provided under Section 34 of the said Act.

3. The petitioner has annexed a couple of advertisements to show that only 3% reservation has been

C/WPPIL/95/2021 ORDER DATED: 05/08/2021

applied by the State / Recruiting Agency in violation of Section 34 which provides that not less than 4% should be reserved for the disabled. Shri Lakhani also informs that another petition bearing Special Civil Application No.3226 of 2021 has been preferred by one of the candidates claiming similar relief as has been claimed in the present petition.

4. Prima facie we are of the view that the present petition as a PIL may not be entertained for two reasons. Firstly, that it raises an issue relating to service which is deprecated in a number of judgments by the Supreme Court and secondly that the petitioner is an Advocate and the Advocates must also as far as possible refrain themselves from filing Public interest Litigations. However, we leave it open to the petitioner that if he is genuinely interested in espousing the cause of the disabled, he may seek impleadment in the pending petition before the learned Single Judge only to assist the Court. It would be at the discretion of the learned Single Judge whether or not to entertain the petitioner.

5. The petition is accordingly disposed of.

(VIKRAM NATH, CJ)

(BIREN VAISHNAV, J) GAURAV J THAKER