[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Lalabhai Khanabhai Parmar vs State Of Gujarat on 20 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20034/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20034 of 2018
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J. SHELAT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==========================================================
LALABHAI KHANABHAI PARMAR
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS MAMTA R VYAS(994) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR SIDDHARTH RAMI, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1,2
MR DEEPAK G ALORIA(6580) for the Respondent(s) No. 4
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 3,5
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J. SHELAT
Date : 20/02/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Siddharth Rami, learned
Assistant Government Pleader, waives service of notice on
behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 & 2.
2. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for
hearing.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20034/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2026
undefined
3. Heard Ms. Mamta R. Vyas, learned Advocate for the
petitioner and Mr. Rami, learned AGP for the respondent
Nos.1 & 2.
4. The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:
"A). Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of Certitiori or writ
in the nature of Certitiori or any other appropriate writ order or
direction and be pleased to quash and Set aside the impugned order/
the communication Dated. 04/07/2018 issued by the District Primary
Education Officer, Banaskantha (ANNEXURE-B) in the interest of
justice.
B). Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or
writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or
direction and be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to Grant
First Higher Grade pay scale w.e.f. 1/6/1987 and not w.e.f.
01/07/1990 and to Grant Second Higher Grade Pay Scale w.e.f.
1/6/1998 when the petitioner had completed another 11 Years of
Service, to the Petitioner, with all consequential benefits with interest
@18% p.a. till the date of realization, as per resolution dated.
16/8/1994 passed by the Government of Gujarat, in the interest of
justice.
C) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or
writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or
direction and be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to grant
all service benefits to the Petitioner as per Govt. Circular dtd:
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20034/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2026
undefined
29/4/1992 for 60% period of untrained teacher's service i.e. 23/07/62
to 30/04/1970 in the interest of justice.
D). Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or
writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or
direction and be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to
recalculate the retirement dues of the petitioner in the interest of
justice.
E) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or
writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or
direction and be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to
recalculate the arrears of difference of pay as well as retirement dues
and further direction may be given to pay the said amount within time
bound period with interest @ 18% pa. till the date of realization.
F). Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, Your
Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to
consider the case of the petitioner in light of the resolution dated:
16/8/1994 and Govt. Circular dtd 29/4/1992 in the interest of justice.
G). Interim and ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause Para- 12(F)
above be granted.
H). Pass such other and further reliefs as the nature and
circumstances of the case may require."
5. THE SHORT FACTS:
5.1. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as a
primary teacher on 23rd July, 1962 and superannuated on 31st
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20034/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2026
undefined
May, 1999; thereby, he has completed 36 years, 6 months and 8
days of service. The petitioner was granted one selection grade
on 1st July, 1981 and thereafter as per the Government
Resolution dated 16th August, 1994, the first higher pay scale
was granted on 1st July, 1990. According to the petitioner, as
per the said resolution, he ought to have been granted the first
higher pay scale w.e.f. 1st June, 1987 instead of 1st July, 1990.
Thus, upon completion of 11 years from 1st June, 1987, i.e., on
1st June, 1998, petitioner ought to have been granted the
second higher pay scale before his retirement. Moreover,
petitioner is also asking for some other service benefits for
period between 23rd December, 1962 and 30th April, 1970 as
per circular dated 29th April, 1992. Nonetheless, there is no
such demand raised by the petitioner either during his service
or by way of any representation, at least nothing on record.
5.2. The petitioner appears to have filed a representation dated
22nd April, 2016 to respondent No. 2 herein seeking the benefit
of second & third higher pay scale and having not received any
response, had approached this Court by way of Special Civil
Application No. 7198 of 2016, wherein, direction was issued to
decide the claim of the petitioner for grant of the second and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20034/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2026
undefined
third higher pay scales. After facing contempt proceedings,
finally, respondent No. 4 herein, vide its communication dated
4th July, 2017, rejected the claim of the petitioner, which is
impugned in the present petition.
6. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONER:
6.1. Ms. Vyas, learned Advocate for the petitioner, would submit
that the impugned communication is erroneous and not in
consonance with the aforesaid resolution dated 16th August,
1994, more particularly its clause No. 3(29). It is submitted that
as per the Government Resolution dated 5th July, 1991, merely
because the petitioner received selection grade on 1st July,
1981, it would not disentitle the petitioner to receive the first
higher pay scale w.e.f. 1st June, 1987.
6.2. Ms. Vyas, learned Advocate, would further submit that the
respondent has not properly appreciated the claim of the
petitioner and wrongly denied the benefit of the first higher pay
scale as per the aforesaid government resolutions. It is
submitted that since the petitioner received selection grade on
1st July, 1981, the respondent has committed a serious error in
granting the benefit of the first higher pay scale w.e.f. 1st July,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20034/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2026
undefined
1990. It is further submitted that selection grade is absolutely
different from that of senior scale and the higher grade pay
scale. The higher grade pay scale is absolutely dependent upon
the length of service of particular years. Whereas, so far as
selection grade is concerned, as per the Government Resolution
dated 16th September, 1976 issued by the Education
Department, there was an element of selection after completion
of 15 years of service to be granted to the teacher.
6.3. Ms. Vyas, learned Advocate, would submit that the issue
germane in the matter is as such squarely covered by the
decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State
of Gujarat V/s. Bhagwanbhai Shankarbhai Patel, reported in
2004 LawSuit(Guj) 640. It is submitted that as per the said
decision, merely because the teacher concerned opted for
selection grade, he should not be denied the benefit of the first
higher pay scale w.e.f. 1st June, 1987, having held that selection
grade and senior scale/higher grade scale are completely
different.
6.4. Ms. Vyas, learned Advocate, would also rely upon the
following decisions of the Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court :
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20034/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2026
undefined
(i) Kandoi Chimanlal Brijlal & Others V/s. State of Gujarat
& Others, reported in 2013 LawSuit(Guj) 105;
(ii) Ambabhai Dudhabhai Chavda V/s. State of Gujarat, in
SCA No.12021 of 2001 with SCA No.9349 of 2008,
decided on 12th April, 2018.
7. SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENT NOS.1 & 2:
7.1. Per contra, Mr. Rami, learned AGP, has vehemently opposed
this petition, contending inter alia that once the petitioner
chosen to continue with selection grade granted on 1st July,
1981, as per Clause No.3(29) of the said Resolution dated 16th
August, 1994, upon completion of 9 years from that date, the
petitioner was eligible to receive first higher pay scale and same
was granted w.e.f. 1st July, 1990.
7.2. Mr. Rami, learned AGP would submit that as per Clause
No.3(29) of the said resolution dated 16-8-1994, an option was
given to the petitioner to continue with selection grade or by
giving up such grade, accept the scheme of the higher pay scale
of 9-20-31 years. It is submitted that as per Form No. 4
submitted on record by the petitioner himself, he had not given
up selection grade. Accordingly, the petitioner was offered the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20034/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2026
undefined
first higher pay scale on 1st July, 1990, i.e., upon completion of
9 years from date of the receipt of selection grade.
7.3. Mr. Rami, learned AGP, would submit that after coming into
force of the Government Resolution dated 16th August, 1994,
no reliance can be placed upon the earlier Government
Resolution dated 5th July, 1991, which no longer survives, as
can be seen from the preamble of the said Resolution dated
16th August, 1994. It is submitted that as per Clause No.3(29)
of the said Resolution, the word used is "selection grade" and
not "senior scale," as was used in the earlier Resolution dated
5th July, 1991, which was interpreted by this Court in the cited
decisions. It is submitted that the decision of the learned Single
Judge dated 12th April, 2018, passed in Special Civil
Application Nos. 12021 of 2001 and 9349 of 2008, was reversed
by the Division Bench of this Court vide its judgment dated 5th
March, 2025, passed in Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 1369 and
1371 of 2018.
7.4. Mr. Rami, learned AGP, would submit that there is no error
committed by the respondent in not granting the second higher
pay scale to the petitioner, inasmuch as the petitioner had not
given up his selection grade; accordingly, as per clause 3(7) of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20034/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2026
undefined
the said Resolution, the petitioner would only be eligible for
the second higher pay scale upon completing 11 years of service
from date of receipt of first higher pay scale. It is submitted
that the petitioner already retired prior to the completion of the
said 11 years of service and therefore, is not entitled to get the
second higher pay scale.
7.5. Mr. Rami, learned AGP, would submit that there is a gross
delay and laches on the part of the petitioner in raising the
claim of the second higher pay scale and other service benefits,
inasmuch as he retired from service on 31st May, 1999 and for
the first time on 22nd April, 2016, raised the claim of the
second higher pay scale only. It is submitted that as per the
settled position of law, in a case where petitioner approaches
the Court after long and inordinate delay, no relief can be
granted by this Court.
7.6. Making the above submissions, he would request this Court to
dismiss the present petition.
8. No other and further submissions are being made.
9. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for the
respective parties and upon perusal of the pleadings and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20034/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2026
undefined
documents made available on record, the short controversy
germane in the matter is that whether the petitioner is entitled
to receive the first higher pay scale w.e.f. 1st June, 1987 instead
of 1st July, 1990; and whether upon completion of 11 years'
service from 1st June, 1987, the petitioner is entitled to receive
the second higher pay scale.
10. The facts which are observed hereinabove are not in dispute
between the parties. The petitioner was appointed as a primary
teacher on 23rd July, 1962 and retired from service on 31st
May, 1999. The petitioner granted selection grade on 1st July,
1981 and the first higher pay scale on 01 st July, 1990. The
petitioner retired from service on 31st May, 1999. After about
17 years from the retirement, the petitioner sought for the
benefit of second & third higher pay scale by making
representation on 22nd April, 2016. The same was rejected by
respondent No.4 vide its impugned communication dated 04 th
July, 2017.
11. After the Government Resolution dated 16th August, 1994
came into force, whereby substituted the earlier Government
Resolution as regards granting the benefit of higher pay scale,
as per Clause No.3(29), an option was given to the teacher who
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20034/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2026
undefined
received selection grade either to continue with selection grade,
then upon completion of nine years after 1st June, 1987 from
date of receipt of selection grade, the first higher pay scale will
be offered; or upon giving up selection grade, the teacher can
join the scheme of higher pay scale of 9-20-31 years.
12. To resolve the controversy, I would like to refer to the Clause
No.3(29) of the aforesaid resolution dated 16th August, 1994 as
under. Its fair translation reads thus:
"Clause-3(29): The teachers who have already been
granted the Selection Grade shall be given an option to
either continue receiving the Selection Grade and
receive the first Higher Grade Pay Scale on 01/06/1987 or
thereafter, upon completion of nine years after receiving
the Selection Grade, or to forego the Selection Grade
and accept the 9-20-31 year scheme. For example, if a
teacher was granted the Selection Grade on 01/01/1973 and
opts for the Selection Grade pay scale, they shall receive the
first Higher Grade Pay Scale on 01/06/1987, and not on
01/01/1982. Similarly, if a teacher was granted the
Selection Grade on 01/01/1980 and opts for the Selection
Grade pay scale, they shall receive the first Higher
Grade Pay Scale on 01/01/1989, and not on 01/06/1987. If
a teacher who was granted the Selection Grade on
01/01/1973 retains it and opts for the Higher Grade Pay
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20034/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2026
undefined
Scale, they shall receive the first Higher Grade Pay Scale on
01/06/1987, and not on 01/01/1982. In the same manner, if a
teacher was granted the Selection Grade on 01/01/1980 and
opt for the Higher Grade Pay Scale, they shall receive the
first Higher Pay Scale on 01/01/1989, and not on
01/06/1987.
The reason for this is that this scheme is to be implemented
from 01/06/1987 and the Selection Grade has been
considered to be a promotion. A teacher who has already
availed the benefit of the Senior/Selection Grade pay scale
may, if they wish, give an option to either continue with the
Senior/Selection Grade pay scale or accept this scheme. If
they opt to join this scheme, the pay fixation shall be carried
out in the manner as if they had never availed the benefit of
the Senior/Selection Grade. As a result of this, if any amount
of pay and allowances is to be recovered, it shall be adjusted
against the benefits receivable under this scheme.
The option must be submitted in writing to the competent
authority within 3 (three) months from the date of issuance of
this Government Resolution, as per the format in Schedule-3
annexed with this Government resolution."
13. As per the said clause, it is very much clear that those teachers
who continue with selection grade, would be entitled to receive
the first higher pay scale upon completion of nine years from
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20034/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2026
undefined
the date of receipt of selection grade, which may be either on
1st June, 1987 or thereafter. The rest of the teachers who have
given up their selection grade, may accept the scheme of higher
pay scale, i.e., 9-20-31 years, as the case may be. It is clearly
mentioned that selection grade is considered as promotion.
14. It is not in dispute between the parties, as can be seen from
Form No. 4 produced on record by the petitioner himself,
wherein, while giving option, he opted for selection grade. The
said form also suggests that upon fulfilling all conditions of the
said resolution dated 16th August, 1994, the petitioner would
be granted the higher pay scale w.e.f. 1st July, 1990. The
examples which are cited in the said Clause No.3(29) is also
clearly indicate that if the teacher does not give up selection
grade, in that circumstances, upon completion of nine years
from receipt of such selection grade, the teacher concerned
would be entitled to receive the first higher pay scale. Thus,
considering the plain language of Clause No.3(29) and keeping
in mind the preamble of the said resolution, the petitioner was
correctly granted the benefit of the first higher pay scale w.e.f.
1st July, 1990 and not from 1st June, 1987 as claimed, as he
received selection grade on 1st July, 1981.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20034/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2026
undefined
15. So far as, the entitlement of the second higher pay scale is
concerned, again no dispute between parties that the petitioner
would be entitled to receive it upon completion of 11 years
from the date of receipt of the first higher pay scale. Whereas,
before such period got over, the petitioner already retired from
service on 31st May, 1999. As observed hereinabove, the
petitioner had received the first higher pay scale on 1st July,
1990, upon completion of 11 years of service from the date of
receipt of first higher pay scale, he would have received benefit
of second higher pay scale, but prior thereto he was retired
from service on 31st May, 1999. Thus, the petitioner was not
granted the benefit of the second higher pay scale.
16. Ms. Vyas, learned Advocate for the petitioner, has
emphatically submitted that merely because the petitioner
granted selection grade on 1st July, 1981, it would not disentitle
the petitioner to receive the first higher pay scale from 1st June,
1987 and thereafter, the second higher pay scale upon
completion of 11 years from that date, as the case may be. Ms.
Vyas, learned Advocate, has placed heavy reliance upon the
decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of
Bhagwanbhai Shankarbhai Patel (supra) and the Coordinate
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20034/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2026
undefined
Bench of this Court in the cases of Kandoi Chimanlal Brijlal
(supra) and Ambabhai Dudhabhai Chavda (supra). According to
Ms. Vyas, learned Advocate, selection grade is absolutely
different from that of senior scale and/or higher grade pay
scale. It is submitted that the higher grade pay scale is
absolutely dependent upon the length of service of particular
years. It has been so argued that the issue germane in the
present case is squarely covered by the ratio of the aforesaid
decisions. Whereas, Mr. Rami, learned AGP, as noted
hereinabove, vehemently objected the said claim and placed
reliance upon Clause No.3(29) of the Government Resolution
dated 16th August, 1994.
16.1. At this stage, I would like to refer to the relevant clauses of the
Government Resolution dated 5th July, 1991 in regards to
granting the benefit of the higher pay scale to the teacher. As
such, the copy of the said Resolution is not made available on
record. Nonetheless, it is reproduced/referred by the Division
Bench of this Court in the case of Bhagwanbhai Shankarbhai
Patel (supra) in Para 6 of such decision, reads thus:
"6. We have heard the learned counsel for the
parties at length. Before going into the details of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20034/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2026
undefined
arguments advanced by the learned advocates of
both the sides, it would be worthwhile to take note of
certain Clauses of the Government Resolutions as
referred hereinabove. Clauses XIV and XV of GR
dated 5-7-1991 issued by the Finance Department
read as under:
"XIV - With the introduction of this
Scheme, the present scheme of grant
of senior scale after 17 years of
service in respect of certain posts
shall stand discontinued. The persons
who have already drawn the senior
scale will be entitled to the next
higher grade scale on their satisfying
the conditions mentioned at (iv) (vi)
and (ix) above;
"XV - The employees who have
already availed the benefit of senior
scale if so desired can give option to
continue in the senior scale or opt for
this scheme. In case of option to come
to this scheme, the pay fixation will
be done as if he had not availed the
benefit of senior scale."
(emphasis supplied)
17. Having minutely gone through the ratio of the aforesaid
decisions, I am of the view that the same is not applicable to
the facts of the present case, inasmuch as the claim of the
present petitioner in this petition, as well as before the
authority, is based upon the Government Resolution dated
16th August, 1994, unlike the claim of the petitioners of cited
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20034/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2026
undefined
cases, which appears to be based upon the Government
Resolution dated 5th July, 1991. The preamble of the
Government Resolution dated 16th August, 1994 clearly
indicates that the earlier scheme of higher pay scale was
withdrawn by the Government and all teachers who are going
to retire after 1st August, 1994 will be governed by the said
resolution. Furthermore, in the facts of those cases wherein, as
per the Government Resolution dated 5th July, 1991, where the
word used was "senior scale" and not "selection grade" as used
in Clause No.3(29) of the aforesaid resolution dated 16th
August, 1994, the Division Bench and Coordinate Bench of this
Court come to the conclusion that there cannot be any
comparison of selection grade and senior scale as both are
absolutely different. Thus, as per the language of the previous
Government Resolution dated 5th July, 1991, the benefit of
higher pay scale was granted to the teacher concerned
irrespective of granting selection grade to the teacher. In fact,
the last decision cited of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in
the case of Ambabhai Dudhabhai Chavda (supra), where
reliance placed of the previous decision of the coordinate Bench
of this Court in Kandoi Chimanlal Brijlal (supra), was the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20034/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2026
undefined
subject matter of challenge by the State in appeal, being LPA
No. 1369 of 2018 and others, wherein the Division Bench of
this Court, after noticing the controversy germane in that
matter, set aside the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this
Court in the case of Ambabhai Dudhabhai Chavda (supra).
17.1. It is not out of place to mention here that controversy germane
before the Division Bench in the case of Bhagwanbhai
Shankarbhai Patel (supra) was in regard to the
clarificatory/amended Resolution dated 16th October, 1993
issued by the State, whereby it introduced the word "selection
grade" for the first time in its earlier resolution dated 5 th July,
1991. Thought such amendment was not interfered by this
Court, yet it was held that selection grade already granted to
the teachers-petitioners of those petitions either in year 1973 or
1976 or 1979 as at that time the criteria for getting selection
grade was different and was not purely on the basis of the
length of service like words "Senior Scale" as used in Clause-
XV of GR dated 05th July, 1991. It has also approved the
reasons given by the learned Single judge in its order dated 19 th
December, 2001 and 24th November, 2003 to the effect that the
words "Senior Scale" and "Selection Grade" are different
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20034/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2026
undefined
connotation. There were different criteria to receive both these
benefits, thus, both cannot be equated with each other. Thus, in
that factual background, the claim of those petitioners was
accepted.
18. Having noticed the difference between the language of the
Government Resolutions dated 5th July, 1991 and 16th
August, 1994, as regards the granting of the benefit of the
higher pay scale to the teacher concerned, inasmuch as the
Resolution dated 5th July, 1991 referred "senior scale", whereas
the Resolution dated 16th August, 1994 referred only "selection
grade", I am of the view that the cited decisions by Ms. Vyas,
Advocate for the petitioner, would not be applicable to the
facts of the present case.
19. In view of the aforesaid observations and reasons, it is very
much clear that despite option was given to petitioner as per
the scheme of the Government Resolution dated 16th August,
1994, at the relevant point of time the petitioner-teacher opted
for and continued with selection grade, then as per Clause
No.3(29) of the said resolution, only upon completion of nine
years of service from receipt of such selection grade, he was
entitled to receive first higher pay scale. Accordingly, the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20034/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2026
undefined
petitioner was granted the first higher pay scale on 1st July,
1990, i.e., completion of nine years from the receipt of selection
grade on 1st July, 1981. Consequently, as per the said
Resolution dated 16th August, 1994, the right to receive the
second higher pay scale would accrue only upon completion of
11 years from 1st July, 1990. Since the petitioner already retired
from service prior to the completion of 11 years of service, as
retired on 31st May, 1999, according to my view, the
respondent has correctly not granted the benefit of the second
higher pay scale.
20. As far non grant of other service benefits as prayed in para-11
(c) of the petition is concerned, except bare words in the
petition, there is nothing on record to show that at given point
of time, petitioner has raised such demand before the
respondent. Furthermore, circular dated 29 th April, 1992 is also
not submitted on record of this petition. Lastly, Mr. Rami,
learned AGP would correct in his submission that such claim is
barred by delay and laches as petitioner claiming such benefits
for a period between 23th July, 1962 and 30th April, 1970, by
way of this petition filed in year 2018.
21. Thus, it can be seen that after about 17 years of his retirement,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20034/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2026
undefined
the petitioner for first time wake up from slumber and raised a
demand to grant him second higher pay scale. Such demand, as
held herein above, is not sustainable in law and appears to be
raised at grossly belated stage, correctly not accepted by the
respondent.
22. In view of the foregoing reasons and conclusion, I do not find
any merit in the petition, which is liable to be dismissed;
accordingly, it is hereby dismissed. Rule discharged. No order
as to costs.
(MAULIK J. SHELAT, J)
NILESH
