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
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
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
