IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 10539 of 2002 For Approval and Signature: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.S.JHAVERI ============================================================ 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? -------------------------------------------------------------- DARJI MANISHA BANSILAL Versus THE PRINACIPAL -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: 1. Special Civil Application No. 10539 of 2002 MR JV JAPEE for Petitioner No. 1-3 .......... for Respondent No. 1 MS NANDINI JOSHI AGP for Respondent No. 2 MR AD OZA for Respondent No. 3 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.S.JHAVERI Date of decision: 23/09/2004 ORAL JUDGEMENT 1. RULE. Ms.Nandini Joshi learned AGP waives service of rule on behalf of respondent no.2 and Mr.A D Oza learned G.P. waives service of rule on behalf of respondent no.3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing today. 2. Mr.J V Japee learned advocate for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are restricting their claim only to the extent of deciding their representations, at Annexure-B to the petition. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, it is directed that respondent no.2 will decide the aforesaid representations, after hearing the petitioners, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of writ of this order. 3. This direction has been issued only for the purpose of getting the surname, caste and sub-castes of the petitioners corrected, which will be subject to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao v. Dean, Seth G.S. Medical College and Ors., reported in (1990) 3 S.C.C. p.130. It is made clear that the Court has passed the aforesaid order without entering into the merits of the case. With the aforesaid observations and direction, the petition stands disposed of. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. (K. S. Jhaveri, J.) pravin/