MISHRA RAKESHKUMAR RAMODBHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . Mr.Y.N.Oza, senior advocate with Mr.Nirzar.S.Desai, learned advocate for the petitioners. Mr.S.P.Hasurkar, learned Additional Govt. Pleader, for all the respondents. Mr.Digant Joshi, Assistant Govt. Pleader for Mr.S.P.Hasurkar.

(2.) . Rule. Mr.Digant Joshi, for Mr.S.P.Hasurkar, waives service of rule. With the consent of the parties, today the matters are taken up for final disposal.

(3.) All these petitions are filed by the petitioners challenging the action of the respondents whereby the petitioners are sent for training at S.R.P. training centre at Sorath Chowky. The petititioners are either armed police constables or unarmed police constables. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners were under training at Police Training School Lal Baug at Vadodara and that they had cleared some parts of the training which is prescribed for the armed police constables and unarmed police constables respectively. It is the case of the petitioners that the training is divided in four parts namely D, C, B and A. The normal period for training for these four parts is eight months and at the interval of two months the trainees are required to pass a particular part of the training and, after they pass one part of the training they have to go for the training of the next part. It is the case of the petitioners that some of them have passed D and C part of the training and some of them have passed D, C and B part of the training. It is also the case of the petitioners that now they are asked to go for a training afresh for all four parts and that to at a training Centre which is meant for training the S.R.P. personnel. The reliefs sought for by the petitioners are that a direction be issued to the respondent to give training to the petitioners only for those particular parts examination for which they have not passed after having taken training of that particular part. The case of the petitioners is that the sending them for training at the Centre ( Sorath Chowky ) and asking them to undergo the training de-novo would cause serious prejudice to them. It is also the case of the petitioners that there is no justification also for the same. It is also submitted on behalf of the petitioners that sending them for training and asking them to start with the training afresh/de-novo amounts to discrimination amongst other similarly situated candidates who are under going training at various centres in the State or who have already under gone the training, who are not asked to take the training de-novo.