Gujarat High Court
Lh Of Decd Janmahmadbhai Nathabhai ... vs State Of Gujarat on 16 June, 2025
Author: Nikhil S. Kariel
Bench: Nikhil S. Kariel
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1044/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1044 of 2025
==========================================================
LH OF DECD JANMAHMADBHAI NATHABHAI THAIYAM MUMTAZBEN W/
O JANMAHAMDBHAI THAIYAM
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
NABIL O BLOCH(7953) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS NIRALI SARDA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL
Date : 16/06/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Nabil O. Bloch for the petitioner and
learned AGP Ms. Nirali Sarda for the respondent-State.
2. It appears that the grievance of the present petitioner in this petition
being that her late husband who was working in the post of House Master
(Class -II), had not been given promotion as House Master (Class - I).
3. Perusal of the petition does not reveal as to how the petitioner is
aggrieved, more particularly no case being made in the petition that any
junior of the late employee had been promoted by ignoring candidature of
the late employee. It also does not appear that there are any releavant
averments as regards any DPC having met in the interregnum where the
case of the late employee had not been considered.
4. It also appears that the case of the petitioner that in the year 2016
i.e. vide judgment dated 21.07.2016, a learned Co-ordinate Bench of this
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1044/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/06/2025
undefined
Court in Special Civil Application No. 18402 of 2011, had set aside
adverse entry in the ACR of the late employee for the period between
01.04.2006 to 11.08.2006. The case of the petitioner appears to be that
on account of the adverse entry, the candidature of the late employee for
further promotion had not been considered.
5. To this Court the present petition does not reflect any relevant
averments made by the petitioner for grant of promotion to the Class-I
post. As noticed hereinabove, there is no averment with regard to any
DPC which has been held in the interregnum or that the candidature of
the late employee had been ignored whereas candidature of person junior
to the late employee was accepted by the respondent authorities.
6. Considering the same, to this Court it would appear that the
petition being meritless is required to be rejected. At this stage,
considering the fact that the petitioner is the wife of the late employee,
liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to file an appropriate
representation with the respondent authorities with the necessary
particulars as observed hereinabove and whereas if any such
representation with the required particulars is preferred within a period of
one month, then the same shall be appropriately decided by the authority
within a period of three months thereafter.
7. With the above observations and directions, the present petition
stands disposed of as rejected.
(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J)
BDSONGARA
