Gujarat Court May 1983 Judgments
Anopkunver Kantha Kunver and anr. Vs. State and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-04-1983
Reported in: (1983)2GLR1235
V.V. Bedarkar, J.1. This petition is filed by the petitioners under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India for the enforcement of their fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.2. The petitioners are involved in offences punishable under Sections 364(7) (this section is mentioned in the simple copy of the First Information Report produced at Annexure 'A', but I am shown the original First Information Report wherein offence is shown to be under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code), 326, 506 & 114 of the Indian Penal Code.3. The allegations of the prosecution are that one boy named Mohamed Hanif, aged about 15 years, was serving at a canteen in Aradhana Talkies in. Baroda. He originally belonged to Chhota Udepur, and it is the allegation in the complaint that one year before he was staying in the station area. But it is not clear whether that station area was of Baroda or Chhota Udepur. At any rate, he had come to Baroda due to the circumstances for serv...
Tag this Judgment!Kum. Sudhaben Vishnuprasad Shukla Vs. Regional Passport Officer and an ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: May-02-1983
Reported in: (1983)2GLR1297
A.M. Ahmadi, J.1. These two petitions raise a common question as to whether the Departmental Promotion Committee had while preparing the select list for promotion applied the correct criterion. The facts leading to these two petitions, briefly stated, are as under.2. Re: Special C.A. 512 of 1983 : The petitioner was appointed a daily rated clerk with effect from 2nd August 1974. In due course she was appointed as Lower Division Clerk from 1st April 1977. She was then promoted to officiate as Upper Division Clerk (Grade VI) with effect from 8th September 1982. The select list prepared on 7th January 1983, Annexure 'D' to the petition, for promotion as Upper Division Clerk shows that her juniors shown at S. Nos. 4 to II have been . included in the said list while her name does not figure therein. She has, therefore, challenged the validity of the said select list.3. Re : Special C.A. No. 880 of 1983 : The petitioner and respondent No. 3 were appointed Junior Clerks on the same day, that ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›