AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.M. Doshit, J.—This Application has been taken out by the writ petitioner in above Special Civil Application No. 12315 of 2004 for restoration of Misc. Civil Application [Stamp] No. 2661 of 2005.
It appears that the applicant''s claim to appointment as full time Lecturer and challenge to the procedure for selection for appointment as full time Lecturer pursuant to the interview held on 29th May, 1995 in Application No. 59 of 1995 before the Gujarat Affiliated Colleges Services Tribunal has failed. The judgment of the Tribunal was confirmed by this Court [Coram : Jayant Patel, J.] by the judgment and order dated 7th March, 2003 passed in Special Civil Application No. 2174 of 2003. Since the dismissal of the above referred Special Civil Application No. 2174 of 2003, the applicant preferred Special Civil Application No. 2705 of 2003 to challenge the selection of the opponent No. 5 in the aforesaid interview held on 29th May, 1995. It was permitted to be withdrawn by Order dated 13th March, 2003 [Coram : Jayant Patel, J.] in the following terms:
Mr. Mangukia at this stage seeks permission to withdraw the petition with a view to make proper representation before the University. Without expressing any opinion further merits permission is granted. Petition is disposed of as withdrawn.
Once again, applicant preferred Special Civil Application No. 7413 of 2004 in the same subject matter. The said petition came to be dismissed by me on 5th July, 2004. It was observed, inter alia, that, "...The petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of inordinate delay in as much as the process of interview held on 29th May, 1995 has been challenged before this Court first in the year 2003 and now in the year 2004. The inordinate delay of eight years has not been explained. Evidently, so long as the petitioner''s service was protected pending her application before the Tribunal, the petitioner did not consider it necessary to challenge the selection of the respondent No. 5. Now that the petitioner has failed before the Tribunal and before this Court, she has challenged the selection of the respondent No. 5. This Court in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India shall not examine the correctness of selection made as far back as in the year 1995".
Once again the applicant took out a fresh proceeding in above Special Civil Application No. 12315 of 2004. This time, the complaint was that her representation, submitted on 19th May, 2003, was not yet decided. By the amendment permitted to be made on 19th April, 2005, the applicant also challenged the action of the University in approving the appointment of the opponent No. 5. The said petition was dismissed on 12th September, 2005 for non prosecution in the following terms:
Learned advocate Mr. Mangukiya is not present even on the second call.
Petition is pending admission hearing for almost one year. No further adjournment is warranted. Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. Notice is discharged. Ad interim order stands vacated.
Misc. Civil Application [Stamp] No. 2661 of 2005 taken out for recall of the above Order dated 12th September, 2005 and restoration of Special Civil Application No. 12315 of 2004 came to be dismissed for non removal of office objections. Therefore, the present Application.
It is categorically stated that the applicant had removed the office objections before 10th March, 2006, the date specified; that the registry has erroneously dismissed the application for non removal of the objections. On perusal of the papers of Misc. Civil Application [Stamp] No. 2661 of 2005, this statement made in the application stands belied. No endorsement of removal of office objections has been made, as submitted by Mr. Mangukiya. After the said application stood dismissed on 10th March, 2006, this Application for restoration was made on 14th February, 2007 and has now been circulated in the month of April, 2008 augmenting the delay in challenge to the above referred 1995 selection.
I am of the opinion that a remiss litigant like the present applicant need not be encouraged. As observed hereinabove, the very challenge made in the year 2004 was held to be grossly belated. Four more years have now been added to the said delay. It should also be noted that the remissness on the part of the learned advocate has resulted into multiplicity of the proceedings. Such indifference also requires to be discouraged.
In above view of the matter, the present Misc. Civil Application is rejected.