SCA/18847/2007 1/2 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 18847 of 2007 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD ========================================= = 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 ? ========================================= = MEHBOOBBHAI M. SANDHOD Versus STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS ========================================= =Appearance : MR NAYAN D PAREKH for the Petitioner MR SP HASURKAR, ASSTT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent No.1 NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1 - 3,5 - 6. MR MEHUL H RATHOD for Respondent No.4 ========================================= = CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD Date : 01/04/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. RULE. Mr. S.P. Hasurkar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Mr. Mehul H. Rathod, learned advocate for respondent No.4, waive service of Rule. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The father of SCA/18847/2007 2/2 JUDGMENT the petitioner died on 25.1.2004. Then, the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment. The appointment has been denied to him on the ground that he is not SSC pass. On the date when he applied, the condition was not there that he should be SSC pass. But, on 16.3.2005, the Government has come with a guidelines that candidate should be SSC pass. The petitioner undertakes that if he is offered appointment, he would pursue his studies and would pass the 10th Std. examination, as early as possible, preferably within one year. 3. With aforesaid undertaking, if he approaches the respondent authorities, the respondents should consider the case of the petitioner for offering him appointment in Class-IV, which is being claimed by the petitioner. 4. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule is made absolute accordingly. (BHAGWATI PRASAD, J.) omkar