SCA/2353/1986 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2353 of 1986 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE ========================================================= 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 ? ========================================================= A.I. PATEL, (TECHNICAL ASSTT) & 2 - Petitioner(s) Versus THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, & 3 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : FRESH NOTICE REQD(R) for Petitioner(s) : 1 - 3. RULE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1 - 3. Ms.Tanuja Kachchhi, AGP for Respondent(s) : 4, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE Date : 19/02/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The petitioners were recruited and appointed as Technical Assistant in the department of respondent no.1 during the year 1983-84 on temporary SCA/2353/1986 2/3 JUDGMENT basis and were continued in service but the appointments given were for 29 days in a month. They continued to work and then ultimately they preferred this petition making following prayers : “(a) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate wirt, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioners in the cadre of Technical Assistants on permanent basis within all benefits. (b) Pending hearing and final disposal of this petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to continue the petitioners in service, and they be further restrained from terminating the services of the petitioners even on expiry of 29 days as per the last appointment order issued to the petitioners. (c) be pleased to grant ex-parte ad-interim relief in terms of prayer (b). (d) be pleased to grant such other and further reliefs, as deemed proper in the nature and circumstances of the case. (e) be pleased to allow this petition with costs.” 2. Since the learned advocate representing the petitioners came to be elevated to the Bench of this Court, notice was issued to the petitioners on SCA/2353/1986 3/3 JUDGMENT 3.1.1990. The same came back with an endorsement that the petitioners are not residing at the address shown in the cause title. Thereafter, the petitioners have not pursued this petition. 3. Learned AGP Ms.Tanuja Kachchhi states that petitioner nos.1 and 3 have resigned with effect from 29.6.1987 and petitioner no.2 has resigned with effect from 25.12.1986. 4. In this set of circumstances, the petition stands disposed of for non-prosecution. Rule discharged. No costs. Ad-interim relief granted earlier vide order dated 28.4.1986 would stand vacated. ( A.L.DAVE, J ) srilatha