IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 322 of 1993 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD ============================================================ 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 @ VIJAYKUMAR VADILAL SHAH SINCE DECEASED THRO HIS HEIRS Versus GUJARAT HOUSING BOARD -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: 1. Special Civil Application No. 322 of 1993 MR YN OZA for Petitioner No. 1 MR SAURABH J MEHTA for Petitioner No. 1/1-1/3 MRS KETTY A MEHTA for Respondent No. 1-2 Mr. Pranay Chaubey for MR KM PATEL for Respondent No. 3-8 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD Date of decision: 12/04/2002 ORAL JUDGEMENT Heard the learned advocates for the parties. In this petition, the petitioner has raised grievance about his seniority on the basis of the deemed date which has been given by the respondent authority but the learned advocate Ms. Ketty Mehta has submitted that actually the petitioner was promoted to the post of Deputy Engineer on 6th September, 1973 and prior to that, direct recruits have been given appointment and their date of appointment has been taken into account while revising the seniority list which was earlier fixed by the Board. She has also clarified that there is no rule of seniority but officiation is considered to be the rule of seniority. In view of these facts as well as considering the fact that the petitioner has expired during the pendency of this petition, according to my opinion, this petition would not survive. Same is, therefore, disposed of as not surviving. Rule is accordingly discharged with no order as to costs with a liberty in favour of the petitioners to move the office for revival of this petition in case of any difficulty. 12.4.2002. (H.K. Rathod,J.) Vyas