Dismissed

District Primary Education Officer v. Jagrutiben Kishorchandra Baraiya

Gujarat HC23 Mar 2022LPA/424/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Gujarat dismissed an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent challenging an interim order in a pending service litigation. The Court held that since the writ petition was pending with the Single Judge and no substantive directions were issued by the interim order, the High Court did not interfere.

What did the court decide?

The Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed; the connected Civil Application was dismissed.

District Primary Education Officer Vs Jagrutiben… — Service and Employment | Gujarat HC (2022)

¶1

C/LPA/424/2022 ORDER DATED: 23/03/2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 424 of 2022 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12758 of 2019 With

¶4

CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022 In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 424 of 2022

¶5

==========================================================

¶6

DISTRICT PRIMARY EDUCATION OFFICER Versus JAGRUTIBEN KISHORCHANDRA BARAIYA

¶7

==========================================================

¶8

Appearance: MS RV ACHARYA(1124) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 for the Respondent(s) No. 3 MR VAIBHAV A VYAS(2896) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MS DHWANI TRIPATHI, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER/PP for the Respondent(s) No. 2

¶9

==========================================================

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK

¶11

Date : 23/03/2022 ORAL ORDER

¶12

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA)

¶13

1.Heard Ms. R.V. Acharya, learned advocate for
the appellant, Mr. Vaibhav A. Vyas, learned
advocate for respondent no.1 - original
petitioner on caveat and Ms. Dhwani Tripathi,
learned Assistant Government Pleader for
respondent no.2 on advance copy.

¶14

2.Though in Paragraph 1 of the memo of appeal, 5
orders passed in Special Civil Application no.
12758 of 2019 i.e. orders dated 24.12.2021,
22.1.2022, 3.3.2022, 4.3.2022 and 8.3.2022 are
challenged, Ms. R.V. Acharya, learned advocate
for the appellant has restricted this appeal

¶15

Page 1 of 4

¶16

C/LPA/424/2022 ORDER DATED: 23/03/2022

¶17

only to the order dated 8.3.2022. We are also
informed that the learned Single Judge has
further passed order dated 14.3.2022, which is
not before us.

¶18

3.It appears from the prayers prayed for in the
Writ Petition that the original petitioner has
challenged the order dated 23.2.2019 passed by
the appellate authority with a further prayer
to reinstate her in service at Malanka Primary
School with her original seniority with effect
from 4.8.212. The original petitioner has also
challenged the communication dated 2.5.2019
which even according to Ms. R.V. Acharya,
learned advocate for the appellant is the
backbone of whole litigation. Ms. Acharya
contended that earlier order dated 24.12.2021
has already been complied with and therefore,
the petition would not survive.

¶19

4. Ms. Acharya further contended that even though the compliance is there, the appellant is not even permitted to argue its case before the learned Single Judge. On the aforesaid grounds, the order dated 8.3.2022 is assailed before this Court in limited jurisdiction of this Court under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

¶20

Page 2 of 4

¶21

C/LPA/424/2022 ORDER DATED: 23/03/2022

¶22

5. Having heard Ms. R.V. Acharya, learned advocate for the appellant, at the outset, she states that this appeal is against the order passed in the pending petition which is pending since 2019.

¶23

6.The learned Single Judge has recorded the
submissions made by Mr. Vaibhav Vyas, learned
advocate for the respondent no.1 - original
petitioner in Paragraph 3 and 4 and the
submissions made by Ms. R.V. Acharya, learned
advocate for the appellant is recorded in
Paragraph 5 of the order. No direction or
order is passed by the learned Single Judge in
the order dated 8.3.2022. The controversy
whether the earlier order dated 24.12.2021 is
complied with or not is to be examined by the
learned Single Judge, wherein the Writ
Petition is pending at large and as informed
by Ms. Acharya, learned advocate for the
appellant, the matter is to be listed on
28.3.2022. Apart from the fact that the
present appeal is against the order passed in
the pending petition, we find that there are
no directions issued by the learned Single
Judge in the order dated 8.3.2022. The
appellant cannot be permitted to challenge 5
orders in one Letters Patent Appeal and
therefore, Ms. Acharya has rightly restricted
the present appeal only to the order dated

¶24

Page 3 of 4

¶25

C/LPA/424/2022 ORDER DATED: 23/03/2022

¶26

8.3.2022. As the Writ Petition is pending and
is to be heard on merits on 28.3.2022, we do
not deem it fit to interfere with the order
dated 8.3.2022 leaving the parties to raise
all contentions available under the law before
the learned Single Judge.

¶27

7. The appeal therefore fails and is not entertained. As the appeal is dismissed, connected Civil Application also would not survive and the same is also dismissed.

¶28

(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)

¶29

Maulik

¶30

Page 4 of 4

District Primary Education Officer v. Jagrutiben Kishorchandra Baraiya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

District Primary Education Officer v. Jagrutiben Kishorchandra Baraiya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Gujarat Vs Patel Manojkumar Babulal

New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs Pushparam Jasuramji Bisnoi

Shivnarayan Mahaveer Prasad Sharma Vs Divya Simandhar Construction

Lahar Assosiates(Contractor) through Lahar Vikrambhai Patel Vs Nandu Laljibhai Nasikkar

Mukeshbhai Rupchandbhai Verma Vs State of Gujarat

State of Gujarat Vs Hamir Bhikubhai Parmar