SCA/4943/1990 1/2 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4943 of 1990 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE ========================================================= 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, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= AMANBAHEN I BAPU - Petitioner(s) Versus DIRECTOR OF PRIMARY EDUCATION & 1 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : NOTICE SERVED for Petitioner(s) : 1,MR SP MAJMUDAR for Petitioner(s) : 1, Ms.Tanuja Kachchhi, AGP for Respondent(s) : 1, NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 2, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE Date : 20/02/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Y.J.Patel on behalf of Mr.S.P.Majmudar. 2. The petitioner working as Assistant Teacher SCA/4943/1990 2/2 JUDGMENT has challenged the order of her transfer dated 30.6.1990 on various grounds. 3. This Court, while issuing notice, directed to maintain status-quo by order dated 10.7.1990. The ad-interim relief came to be confirmed by order dated 6.4.1992 admitting the petition and it was kept open for the petitioner to make a representation to cancel the impugned order of transfer during pendency of the petition and a statement was made on behalf of respondent no.2 that if such representation is made on behalf of the petitioner against the impugned order of transfer, the same will be considered sympathetically. 4. It is not required to go into the merits or demerits of the impugned order in view of the fact that even as per the petitioner, she had already put in 20 years of service in the year 1990. Thereafter, 18 years have passed by and there is no material to know whether a representation was made and if so what order was passed by the respondent authorities. The petitioner has enjoyed the protection for nearly 18 years against the transfer by virtue of interim relief. Under the circumstances, no further relief is required to be granted in favour of the petitioner. The petition stands disposed of as having become infructuous. Rule discharged. Interim relief stands vacated. No costs. ( A.L.DAVE, J ) srilatha