SCA/732119/1992 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7321 of 1992 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 ? ========================================================= D S MANJARIA - Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 3 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR HARSHAD K PATEL for Petitioner(s) : 1, MR SHIVANG SHUKLA AGP for Respondent(s) : 1, MR HS MUNSHAW for Respondent(s) : 2 - 4. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 15/12/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner by way of this petition has prayed to direct respondent no. 2 not to remove, or dismiss the petitioner from service. SCA/732119/1992 2/3 JUDGMENT 2. The short facts of the case are : 2.1. The petitioner was appointed as Clerk on 22nd May, 1978 and since then he is working as such. It is the case of the petitioner that after the appointment on the said post, the petitioner was directed to furnish the medical fitness certificate and, therefore, the petitioner submitted the certificate of medical fitness of Incharge Doctor of Primary Health Center, Chalala. It is the case of the petitioner that one Mr. Valla, made an application against the petitioner, that the petitioner be directed to produce the medical fitness certificate. It is further the case of the petitioner that during his tenure of long service, the respondent authority has not given any report about the physical fitness of the petitioner. Hence, this petition. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. From the record it transpires that the respondent has directed the petitioner to produce the medical fitness certificate. However, this Court while admitting the petition on 2nd July, 1993 had passed the following order : “Rule. Learned Counsel have been heard on the question of interim relief. The petitioner has been called in the Court room. He is asked to read from the petition. It is noticed that he is able to read papers. He is also able to see people around him. It is, therefore, surprising that a stand should be taken by the respondents that he is not able to see properly merely SCA/732119/1992 3/3 JUDGMENT because fitness certificate which they have been insisting for, as regards eye sight is not produced by him. The petitioner's services have been terminated on this basis by an order dated 7.10.1992. By way of interim relief, it is directed that the further operation of the order dated 7.10.1992 be stayed and the petitioner be allowed to resume work until further orders.” In that view of the matter, the parties will be governed by the aforesaid interlocutory order passed by this Court. Hence, the petition stands disposed of. Rule is made absolute. However, it is made clear that it will be open for the respondents to take appropriate steps if any misconduct is committed by the petitioner or that even today he is not physically fit to continue in job. [K.S. JHAVERI, J.] /phalguni/