SCA/6485/1989 1/5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6485 of 1989 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6655 of 1989 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6312 of 1989 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 ? ========================================================= SHAIKH ABDULSATTAR MOHAMADBHAI & 3 - Petitioner(s) Versus AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPN. & 1 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR NK MAJMUDAR for Petitioner(s) : 1 - 4. MR BP TANNA for Respondent(s) : 1, MR NR TANDEL for Respondent(s) : 2, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE Date : 21/02/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT SCA/6485/1989 2/5 JUDGMENT 1. The petitioners challenged the select list dated 22.8.1989 prepared by the respondents authorities for the post of Clerk in the AMTS making several allegations pertaining to the selection process and preparation of the select list. 2. Initially, this Court passed following orders on 8.9.1989. “Notice pending admission returnable on 4.10.89. Direct service. Int relief not to make appointment upto 31 October 1989. 8.9.89 Sd/- (P.M.Chauhan,J)” 3. Later on, on 26.10.1989 the following order was passed : “Rule. To be heard along with Spl.C.A.No.4926/89. Interim relief granted earlier is extended until further orders with the modification that no appointment out of the select list should be made. However, in view of the request by Mr.Tanna, learned Advocate for the respondents, that the respondents would require about forty five Clerks for issuing the concession passes to the students from November 1, 1989 SCA/6485/1989 3/5 JUDGMENT to November 30, 1989, the respondents are allowed to make ad-hoc appointment of 45 selectees as per serial number and subject to roster benefits, for one month from 1st November, 1989 to 30th November, 1989. The orders of appointment should specifically mention that the appointment is on ad hoc basis for the limited period from November 1, 1989 to November 30, 1989, and only for the purpose of issuing concession passes to the students during the said period. 26.10.1989 Sd/- (P.M.Chauhan,J) 4. In S.C.A.No.6312 of 1989, the Court passed the following order : “Rule returnable on 29.9.89 and to be heard along with S.C.A. 4926/89. D S Permitted. 1.9.89 Sd/- (P.M.Chauhan,J)” 5. In S.C.A.No.6655 of 1989, the following order was passed : “Rule. To be heard with Spl.C.A. 4926/89. Mr.B.P.Tanna, learned advocate for the respondents waives service of rule. SCA/6485/1989 4/5 JUDGMENT 20.10.89 Sd/- (P.M.Chauhan,J)” 6. Heard learned advocates Mr.Suthar for Mr.Majmudar in Special Civil Application No.6485 of 1989, Mr.Shah in Special Civil Application No.6655 of 1989 and no one appears for the petitioner in Special Civil Application No.6312 of 1989. Learned advocate Mr.Kariel appears for Mr.Tanna for the respondents. 7. Undisputedly, none of the petitioners were included in the select list impugned in the petitions and hence the petitions. It appears that the interim relief granted as modified by subsequent order passed in SCA No.6485 of 1989, the stay against making appointments out of the select list impugned in the petitions subsists till today. However, learned advocate Mr.Kariel makes a statement that unexhausted list from Sr.Nos.113 onwards has been scrapped by virtue of Staff Selection Committee Resolution No.127 dated 5.3.1997. He places on record copy of the resolution which indicates that appointments were made with permission of the Court from the selected list upto Sr.No.112. Be that as it may. The fact remains that as on today, the select list impugned does not exist. 8. So far as the case of the petitioners for non-inclusion is concerned, best that they could have claimed would be a direction on the respondents to SCA/6485/1989 5/5 JUDGMENT consider the case of the petitioners in the post in question. Now that the list is scrapped and a period of nearly two decades has passed, the complexion of the job requirement must have changed. Under the circumstances, as and when new appointments are to be made, the petitioners may apply, if they fall within the eligibility criteria for the post in question for which no relief can be granted at this stage in these petitions. The petitions, thus, would stand disposed of as having become infructuous. The interim relief granted would stand vacated. No order as to costs. Liberty reserved to the parties to approach this Court in case of difficulty. Rule discharged. No costs. ( A.L.DAVE, J ) srilatha