MISTRY RAJESHKUMAR RAMANLAL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS common question of facts and law arise in both these Letters Patent Appeals, they are being disposed of by this common judgement and order.

(2.) LETTERS Patent Appeal No. 4 of 2009 with Civil Application No. 23 of 2009 is filed by the appellant herein - original petitioner challenging the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge dtd. 30/12/2008 in Special Civil Application No. 15960 of 2008 in dismissing the same and in not directing the respondents to consider the application of the appellant - original petitioner for the post of Assistant Public Prosecutors in the State of Gujarat as per law and not allowing the appellant to appear in preliminary examination. Letters Patent Appeal No. 82 of 2009 is preferred by the appellant - original petitioner challenging the impugned order dtd. 30/12/2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 15567 of 2008 in dismissing the said Special Civil Application and in not directing the respondent No. 2 - Gujarat Public Service Commission ('GPSC' for short) to issue Call Letter of test to the appellant.

(3.) BEFORE considering the Letters Patent Appeals on merits, few facts and the history which lead to filling up the posts of Assistant Public Prosecutor in the State of Gujarat deserves consideration, and the same are as under: