JOSHI BHAGVANBHAI KARSHANBHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all these petitions, the only point involved is whether the petitioners should be granted the benefit of decision of this court (Coram:K.A.Puj,J) in SCA No.9817/03 and allied matters or not?

(2.) Rule. Mr.A.D.Oza, Ld.Govt.Pleader waives service of rule on behalf of respondent-authorities. With the consent of learned advocates for parties matters are taken up for final disposal today.

(3.) Ld.counsel appearing for the petitioners have, interalia, submitted that the petitioners are similarly situated at par with the petitioners SCA No.9817/03 and others in as much as the petitioners had passed the examination prior in point of time and they have also submitted applications for getting admission in PTC. However, their marks are sought to be deducted in view of the Govt.Resolution, dated 3.7.03 copy whereof is produced at Annexure "A", which is not considered legal and valid as per the decision of this court (Coram:K.A.Puj,J) in case of Zaranben Rasikbhai Patel and others V/s State of Gujarat & Ors . It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that not only their forms were accepted but the applications were accordingly processed without considering the GR, dated 3.7.03 in view of the interim order passed in the case of Zaranben Rasikbhai Patel(supra). However, the apprehension on the part of the petitioners is that as per para 52 of the decision this court in case of Zaranben (supra) the relief is granted qua the petitioners who were before this court and therefore the petitioners upon inquiry have learnt that since they were not petitioners in that group of petitions even though their applications are accepted and processed accordingly and even their case covered by the decision of this court in the case of Zaranben (supra), the said benefit will not be conferred upon the petitioners. Mr.Pujara and Mr.Yatin Oza, learned counsel for petitioners have submitted that the State Govt can not give discriminatory treatment to these persons who are similarly situated on all aspects. It has been submitted that this court has taken the view that the resolution for deduction of 15 marks can not be allowed to operate and it would operate from the next year and therefore the petitioners would be entitled to similar benefit. It has been submitted that the State should not take a technical stand of the matter so as to deprive the petitioners from getting the benefit. Mr.Oza and Mr.Pujara have relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Prahlad Singh vs Union of India and another reported in AIR 1989 SC 1563 and in the case of Doordarshan Cameramen's Welfare Association vs Union of India & Anr reported in AIR 1990 SC 1387 for contending that the similarly situated employees would be entitled to benefits if there is no delay and Mr.Pujara submitted that as such there is no delay because the judgment is pronounced 13.8.03 and petitioners have approached this court immediately.