Back
VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
J. Venkataramanan – Appellant
Versus
Government Of Gujarat – Respondent
ORDER :
(Vaibhavi D. Nanavati, J.) :
1. By way of present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein has challenged the impugned communication No.1147/2023, dated 04.08.2023, addressed by the Registrar, City Civil & Sessions Court, Ahmedabad, under the instructions of the learned Principal Judge, whereby the petitioner was informed that the representation made by the petitioner to grant exemption from passing the Gujarati Language Test, has been ordered to be “Filed”.
1.1 The petitioner further challenges the impugned communication No.AC/502/2023, dated 06.10.2023 addressed by the Registrar, City Civil & Sessions Court, Ahmedabad, under the instructions of the learned Principal Judge informing the petitioner that since the petitioner did not clear the Gujarati Language Test, the increments, Higher Grade and Promotion, already granted to the petitioner, shall be withdrawn. It is the case of the petitioner that both the impugned communications are against the principles of law, violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and violative of the concerned Rules i.e. The Gujarat Government Servants (Lower Standard and Higher Standard Guja
The court established that acceptance of appointment conditions, including language proficiency requirements, precludes later claims for exemption based on age.
The court ruled that the Gujarat Civil Services (Conditions of Service relating to Departmental Examination) Rules, 2015 are prospective and do not apply retrospectively to petitioners, who failed to....
The court ruled that the petitioner must comply with the new departmental examination rules for promotion, as the old rules do not apply retrospectively.
The court emphasized that it cannot rewrite the terms of recruitment and cannot issue directions contrary to the eligibility requirements under the applicable terms.
Exemption from departmental examination can be granted retrospectively; discrimination against similarly situated officers violates Article 14.
The requirement to pass the Punjabi language examination is not essential at the application stage but must be fulfilled before appointment, as per Rule 17 of the 1994 Rules.
The requirement of proficiency in Telugu for judicial recruitment is upheld as a valid policy decision, not violating fundamental rights or being arbitrary.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
