IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 5501 of 1986 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE A.R.DAVE ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? : NO -------------------------------------------------------------- DASHRATHBHAI P. PATEL Versus DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: NOTICE UNSERVED for Petitioner No. 1 MR KP RAVAL, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondents No. 1-2 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE A.R.DAVE Date of decision: 18/03/2002 ORAL JUDGEMENT This petition was filed in 1986 praying that the respondent authorities should be directed to give admission to the petitioner in Polytechnic, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad or in any other college under the Director of Technical Education in any engineering diploma course. The petition was admitted on 24.10.1986. 2. Nobody has appeared for the petitioner. The learned advocate, who was formerly appearing for the petitioner, has been appointed as Judge, Gujarat Secondary Education Tribunal and therefore notice was issued to the petitioner so that he can engage another advocate or can appear in person. It has been reported that the petitioner has changed his address and therefore it is not possible to give intimation to the petitioner. 3. It has been submitted by learned AGP Shri K.P. Raval appearing for the respondent government authorities that the petitioner had not passed SSC with science subjects and therefore he was not entitled to admission in engineering diploma course. 4. Be that as it may, the petition was admitted in 1986 and by this time the petitioner must have prosecuted studies in another faculty. The petitioner has also changed his residence and it is not possible to give intimation with regard to pendency of this petition to the petitoner. 5. In the circumstances, the petition is rejected. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. However, it would be open to the petitioner to approach this court if he is aggrieved by this order. (A.R. Dave, J.) (hn)