SCA/6890/1994 1/2 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6890 of 1994 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.J.SHETHNA HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.C.PATEL ========================================================= 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 ? ========================================================= IQBALHUSSEIN M. MALIK - Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR IQBAL M MALIK for Petitioner(s) : 1, MR SP HASURKAR, AGP for Respondent(s) : 1 - 2. LAW OFFICER BRANCH for Respondent(s) : 2, MR JB PARDIWALA for Respondent(s) : 2, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.J.SHETHNA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.C.PATEL Date : 04/04/2006 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.J.SHETHNA) The petitioner is an advocate. He had initially filed this petition through his advocate who has expired. Therefore, today, he has preferred to address SCA/6890/1994 2/2 JUDGMENT the court as party-in-person. 2. Shri Malik submitted that having been appointed on the post of Assistant Judge in the Gujarat State Judiciary, the respondents – High Court and the State of Gujarat committed grave error in cancelling his appointment order only on the ground that he was suffering from a serious disease like Schizophrenia. He has also tried to submit on merits of the case but in the fitness of things, we have decided not to go into the merits of the case and dispose of this petition only on the ground that the petitioner is at present 57 years old, just near the age of superannuation, therefore, he cannot be reinstated in service. There would have been different consideration if the matter was heard immediately after it was filed. 3. Expressing any opinion on the merits may come in the way of the petitioner in his career as a lawyer. Hence, without going into anything, this petition is disposed of. Rule discharged. No costs. ( B.J. Shethna, J. ) ( M.C. Patel, J. ) hki