DISTRICT RURAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY Vs. NARESHBHAI KALIDAS PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent No. 1 in Special Civil Application No. 2003/82 is the appellant. The. petitioners in Special Civil Application were working as Junior Clerks, Stenographer and in other similar categories. They contended that they were entitiled to be considered for promotion to the posts of Senior Clerk and Stengorapher Grade-Ill. The petitioners therein raised their claim on the strength of a judgment passed by this Court. The learned Single Judge held that on the basis of Government Resolution as incorporated in the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the petitioners were entitiled to be considered for promotion and the Special Civil Application was allowed. Aggrieved by the same, present Letters Patent Appeal is preferred.

(2.) The impugned judgment was passed on 21.3.1995. The record shows that there was no interim stay against operation of the judgment. Promotions of the respondents herein must have been considered by the authority and appropriate orders must have been passed by this time. Moreover, the learned Single Judge had directed only to consider the cases of the petitioners for promotion to the post of Senior Clerk and Stenographer Grade-Ill, If they were eligible for appointment to the said posts. The appellants were asked to pass appropriate orders pursuant to the judgment of the learned Single Judge. It is also not brought to our notice that any appeal was preferred against the judgment rendered in Special Civil Application No. 4722 and other cognate matters. The impugned judgment is also Passed on the basis of Government Resolution Annexure-A.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant was not present when the appeal was taken up for hearing and when we were about to dismiss the appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant appeared and contended that this being an appeal filed under Clause 15 of the letters Patent Act, the same may not be dismissed without hearing the appellant's -sel. He further contended that if the appellant's counsel is absent the Court shall only it for default and shall not advert to the points raised in the appeal and dispose it of on merits. This contention was raised based on Rule 17 of Order 41 of the CPC read " with Rule 84 of the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993. The learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on two earlier decisions of this Court in the case of J.M. Patel vs. P.G. Patel reported in 34(1) GLR page-830 and in the case of Shantilal Chandrashanker & Anr. vs. Bai Basi, Wd/o of Bhura Anop. reported in 16 (1) GLR page-1.