Dipti Prakashkumar Rana vs Amit Jayeshkumar Solanki

Rule. Learned advocate, Mr.Chintan K.Gandhi, waives service of rule on behalf of respondents.

Heard learned advocates for the parties. In fact, it is required to be noted that the present applicants have taken out this application for seeking leave to prefer an appeal challenging judgment and order dated 16.10.2018 passed in the proceedings of Special Civil Application No.2752 of 2018 as they were not impleaded as party respondents in the proceedings of Special Civil Application and as the interim relief granted thereunder enure against their interest and therefore, they are aggrieved and seek leave to challenge the said order in the proceedings of Letters Patent Appeal (Stamp) No.33162 of 2018.

It is pertinent to note that the appellants in Letters Patent Appeal No.1481 of 2018 being original respondent Nos.3 and 4 have also challenged the very same order being order dated 16.10.2018 passed in Special Civil Application No.2752 of 2018 which is sought to be challenged by the present applicants and hence, they have sought leave of this Court in this application. Both these matters i.e. Civil Application No.2999 of 2018 as well as Letters Patent Appeal No.1481 of 2018 were always being listed together and were being heard together hence, when the Civil Application itself was awaiting to be decided, there was no pakka number given to the appeal and it was only stamp number.

The opponents, who are original petitioners in Special Civil Application No.2752 of 2018, resisted this application though no reply is filed controverting the averments made in this application for seeking leave to appeal challenging the judgment in question. The present applicants are thus members of academic staff of the original respondent Nos.3 and 4-Institute and are completely eligible to appear in recruitment process initiated under the two advertisement dated 5.1.2018 and 12.1.2018. They were not party impleaded before the Court in the proceedings of Special Civil Application No.2752 of 2018 and therefore, when there is an interim order passed affecting their recruitment process, they choose to prefer this application for leave to prefer an appeal proceedings along with Letters Patent Appeal proposed, challenging the said order and judgment of 16.10.2018 passed in Special Civil Application No.2752 of 2018.

The Court is of the considered view that the applicants have a substantive ground and grievance to be impleaded and to be permitted to challenge the order on account of the operation of the interim order dated 16.10.2018, their recruitment procedure has come to standstill.

In view thereof, this Court is of the considered view that they deserve to be permitted to lay Letters Patent Appeal and as their counsel has submitted that all alone they have participated in the proceedings and adopting the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants in Letters Patent Appeal No.1481 of 2018, the office is directed to give Pakka Number to the Letters Patent Appeal and he be permitted to adopt the submissions canvased on behalf of the appellant in Letters Patent Appeal No.1481 of 2018, as the appellants may not have anything else to add except to submit that they are the parties visited with the consequences of the order impugned in the Letters Patent Appeal No.1481 of 2018 in the present proceedings in which Leave to prefer an Appeal is sought.

Hence, Leave to prefer an Appeal is allowed. The oral objection of the original petitioners of Special Civil Application No.2752 of 2018 is overruled as the contentions raised in the application have remained un-controverted and they have to be taken otherwise also, to be true and correct so that, their right to challenge the order which affects them directly may not be jeopardized in any manner. Office is directed to give Pakka Number and as the Letters Patent Appeal is also slatted for dictation and as it was heard along with the main matter, the Court proposes to pass common order in both the Letters Patent Appeal accordingly. Rule made absolute.