SCA/824019/1991 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8240 of 1991 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI ========================================================= 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 ? ========================================================= PATEL ANANDIBEN JETHABHAI - Petitioner(s) Versus TALUKA DEVELOPMENT OFFICER & 2 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR PS PATEL for Petitioner(s) : 1, NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1, MR SHIVANG SHUKLA AGP for Respondent(s) : 2 - 3. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 01/12/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner by way of this petition has prayed to quash and set aside the termination order dated 12.09.1986 passed by the respondent. SCA/824019/1991 2/3 JUDGMENT 2. The short facts of the case are :- 2.1. On 17.04.1985, the petitioner was appointed as Clerk on temporary basis with the respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that he continued to serve on the said post with artificial breaks. It is further the case of the petitioner that the respondent without following the procedure of law, terminated the petitioner from service with effect from 12.09.1986. 2.2. Being aggrieved by the said order of termination, the petitioner preferred Suit being Regular Civil Suit No. 709 of 1986 before the trial Court. The learned Judge after hearing the parties and considering the evidence on record granted injunction vide order dated 19.06.1986 and subsequently vide order dated 13.07.1990, the same was confirmed till final disposal of the suit. The petitioner was thereafter continued in the service till today. 2.3. It is the case of the petitioner that the while deciding the said Suit, the learned trial Judge vide order dated 24.01.1991 has held that the trial Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the said Suit and had extended the injunction for a period of 30 days with a SCA/824019/1991 3/3 JUDGMENT view to approach the appropriate forum. Hence, this petition. 3. Heard learned advocate for the parties. From the evidence, it transpires that the petitioner has filed this petition without producing the impugned order of termination. Hence, on this ground alone, this petition is not maintainable. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief if any, stands vacated. 3.1. It is however, stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is still in service. Thus, it is observed that it will be open for the petitioner to make representation before the appropriate authority. [K.S. JHAVERI, J.] /phalguni/