MAULIK BHARATBHAI MANDIR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The appellant, original petitioner in Special Civil Application No.2927 of 2012, and an aspirant to be appointed as Class IV employee in respondent No.2 authority on the basis of the policy prevailing when his father died in harness in the year 2006, has taken out this Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 challenging the judgment and order dated 16.07.2012, dismissing the said on the ground that the petitioner's application had been rejected in the year 2006 and again it was rejected in the year 2009 and despite such rejection no challenge was taken out and it was only in the year 2012 the petition was filed. On account of inordinate delay, the petition was rejected giving rise to filing of this appeal as stated above.

(2.) The facts shorn off unnecessary details and required to examine the controversy and challenge, deserves to be set out as under;

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the respondent were not justified in rejecting his application by taking into consideration the subsequent amendment of minimum qualification of passing SSCE, which was pressed into service. At the relevant time, the requisite minimum qualification being 8th standard pass was filled in by the petitioner and it has not been questioned by anyone. Not challenging the earlier orders of 07.10.2006 and 19.09.2009 could not have been said to be on account of any latches and delay that too inordinate as furnishing ground for dismissing the petition. The appellant was all along pursuing the remedy and was also all along grappling with the situation for qualifying him so that the policy and its resultant benefits may be availed by him in due course.