BHAVESHKUMAR RATNABHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, the appellant-original petitioner has challenged the impugned judgment dated 12343(sic) of 2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in the captioned writ petition by which learned Single Judge has summarily dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the recruitment process which had taken place in the year 2011 came to be challenged after a period of 10 years by filing the writ petition in the year 2021.

(2.) Mr. Aditya D. Davda, learned advocate appearing for the appellant would submit that the learned Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 483 of 2019 by order dtd. 18/2/2019 has held that some delay on the part of the petitioner in filing the writ petition can be considered and the petition can be decided on merits. He, therefore, would submit that the present appeal may be admitted and the matter may be remanded to learned Single Judge for fresh consideration on merits.

(3.) On the other hand, Ms. Divyangna Jhala, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent No. 1 has opposed the present appeal and would submit that it is an undisputed fact that the challenge in the writ petition is with regard to the recruitment which had taken place in the year 2011. She would further submit that the appellant has failed to establish any reason before the learned Single Judge for entertaining the writ petition after a period of 10 years. She would further submit that the decision relied upon by the learned advocate appearing for the appellant is not applicable since in the said case, delay was of around 3 years whereas in the present case, the delay is of 10 years. Ms. Jhala has relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1002 of 2021 rendered on 2/2/2021 and would submit that in the said case, the appellant had challenged the decision of refusing him appointment after delay of 8 years and the writ petition as well as appeal was dismissed by this Court on the ground of unexplained delay. She, therefore, would submit that the present appeal may be dismissed.