IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 656 of 2000 with CIVIL APPLICATION No 771 of 2003 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.665 of 2000 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 705 of 2000 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 6183 of 2001 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 8359 of 2001 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL ============================================================ 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 concerned : NO Magistrate/Magistrates,Judge/Judges,Tribunal/Tribunals? -------------------------------------------------------------- NAYANABEN BABUBHAI BHATT Versus COMMISSIONER OF HIGHER EDUCATION -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: 1. Special Civil Application No. 656 of 2000 MR PK JANI for Petitioner No. 1 DS AFF.NOT FILED (R) for Respondent No. 1 RULE SERVED BY DS for Respondent No. 2,3-4 NANAVATI & NANAVATI for Respondent No. 3 MR MITUL K SHELAT for Respondent No. 4 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL Date of decision: 05/02/2003 COMMON ORAL JUDGEMENT 1. Heard Mr.Jani, learned Counsel for the petitioners in all these petitions, Ms.Manisha Lavkumar, learned AGP for the State, Mr.M.Shelat, learned Counsel for the University, Mr.Shukla, learned Counsel for M/s.Nanavati & Nanavati appearing for respondent Law College. 2. There is a consensus amongst the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as for the respondents that all these matters are covered by the decision of this Court dated 28-1-2003 in SCA No.663/2000 and SCA No.668/2000. 3. In above view of the matter, I find that no elaborate discussion is required and suffice to say that all the rights and contentions of the petitioners shall be governed on the same line and at para with the petitioners of SCA No.663/2000 and SCA No.668/2000 as per the decision dated 28-1-2003, except so far as the petitioner of SCA No.8359/2001 since he has already been paid the arrears and, therefore, no separate benefits will be ensured to him, except the benefits as per the interim order passed earlier. 4. All these petitions are allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule made absolute accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. 5-2-2003 (Jayant Patel, J.) vinod