JAGDISH CHANDUBHAI SOLANKI Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is filed for compassionate appointment and thereafter, during the pendency of the petition, petition is amended by further challenging the appointment of two lady candidates. The prayers made in the amended petition is as under:-

(2.) When the matter is called out, in both the rounds, learned advocate for the petitioner Ms. Rajal R. Brahmbhatt is not present.

(3.) Learned advocate Mr. Pratik Khubchandani for learned advocate Mr. Dhaval Vyas is present for respondent No.1. He has drawn attention of this Court that the affidavit-in-reply is filed on behalf of the respondent by Dilip Sahadev Shelatkar and thereafter, further affidavit-in-reply is also filed by one Mr. Mahfuzur Rahman on behalf of the respondent no.1 and has submitted that cause as, prayed for, in the present petition is not survived in view of the averments made in the affidavit-in-reply as well as further affidavit- in-reply. He has drawn attention that the main prayer regarding compassionate appointment cannot be granted in view of the facts stated in the affidavit-in-reply.