Maksudbhai Abdulrasul Mansuri vs State Of Gujarat
2022 Latest Caselaw 6146 Guj

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 6146 Guj
Judgement Date : 11 July, 2022

Gujarat High Court

Maksudbhai Abdulrasul Mansuri vs State Of Gujarat on 11 July, 2022

Bench: Biren Vaishnav

     C/SCA/2218/2019                                JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2022



             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

               R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2218 of 2019


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV

==========================================================

1     Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
      to see the judgment ?

2     To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

3     Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
      of the judgment ?

4     Whether this case involves a substantial question
      of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
      of India or any order made thereunder ?

==========================================================
                       MAKSUDBHAI ABDULRASUL MANSURI
                                   Versus
                         STATE OF GUJARAT & 4 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS TEJAL A VASHI(2704) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR.UTKARSH SHARMA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
MR DK CHAUDHARI(5361) for the Respondent(s) No. 5
MS.NIYATI VAISHNAV, ADVOCATE for MR PINAKIN M RAVAL(2495) for
the Respondent(s) No. 3
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 4
==========================================================

    CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV

                               Date : 11/07/2022

                               ORAL JUDGMENT

1. RULE returnable forthwith. Mr.Utkarsh Sharma

learned AGP waives service of notice of Rule on

behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2, Ms.Niyati

C/SCA/2218/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2022

Vaishnav learned advocate for Mr.Pinakin Raval

learned advocate waives service of notice of Rule on

behalf of the respondent no.3, Mr.D.K.Chaudhary

learned advocate waives service of notice of Rule on

behalf of the respondent No.5. Though served,

nobody appears for respondent no.4.

2. With the consent of learned advocates for the

respective parties, the petition is taken up for final

hearing.

3. Heard Ms.Tejal Vashi learned advocate for the

petitioner and the concerned advocates for the

respective respondents.

4. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged

the communication dated 08.01.2019, by which, he

was declared as surplus at Prantiya School and

expected to be transferred. That was because,

according to him, by virtue of the order dated

20.06.2014 passed in Special Civil Application

No.8644 of 2014, the respondent no.5 had sought

C/SCA/2218/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2022

placement at Prantiya. It appears that after having

secured placement at Prantiya, by virtue of an

interim order dated 20.06.2014 passed in Special

Civil Application No.8644 of 2019, the respondent

no.5 on 10.11.2017, based on this order, requested

the Court that since her grievance does not survive,

the petition be disposed of. The petition was

disposed of. However, in the present petition, by an

order dated 12.02.2019, the Court had protected the

petitioner by passing the following order:

" Heard learned advocate Ms. Nirali Oza for learned advocate Ms. Tejal Vashi for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. K. M. Antani for the respondent state, on service of copy of the petition in advance.

2. The petitioner who is Vidhya Sayahak seeks to set aside order dated 8.1.2019 passed by respondent No.4, whereby, according to the petitioner, he is declared surplus.

3. It was submitted by learned advocate for the petitioner that one Rathod Dakshaben Ashwinchandra who happens to be Vidhya Sahayak in the very subject serving in the same school where the petitioner has been, had an occasion to file Special Civil Application 8644 of 2014, in which while issuing Notice on 20.6.2014, this court granted ad interim relief directing the respondent No.3 to allow the said petitioner Rathod Dakshaben Ashwinchandra to participate in the Upper Primary Section Camp

C/SCA/2218/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2022

to be organised on 21.6.2014, which was however made subject to final outcome of that petition. The said petition was, submitted learned advocate, surreptitiously withdrawn as recorded in order dated 10.11.2017.

4. It was submitted that now in place of said Rathod Dakshaben Ashwinchandra, the petitioner is sought to be declared surplus. On the other hand learned Assistant Government Pleader questioned entitlement of relief to the petitioner on the ground that what is styled as order dated 8.1.2019 is only yadi whereby the petitioner is shown in the statement of surplus.

5. Essentially it is not possible to make any distinction as sought to be suggested by learned Assistant Government Pleader. The yadi declaring the petitioner as surplus on the contrary would indicate that the consequential order is offing. The apprehension is prima facie well founded.

6. Notice returnable on 7.3.2019.

7. By way of ad-interim relief, it is directed that the status quo with regard to the service conditions of the petitioner shall be maintained by the respondent authorities.

Direct service is permitted."

5. Subsequent developments indicate as pointed out by

Shri Chaudhary learned advocate for the respondent

no.5 that by virtue of the respondent no.5 having

been permitted to attend the camp on 27.11.2020,

she has been transferred from Prantiya to

C/SCA/2218/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2022

Koteshwar. In view of this development, the issue

would become academic.

6. Accordingly, the order dated 08.01.2019 is hereby

quashed and set aside. The interim order shall

operate as final order. Petition is disposed of in the