1. Heard Mr. Oza, learned Advocate for petitioner, Mr. H.J.Nanavati, learned Advocate for respondent No.2 and Ms. Kruti M. Shah, learned Advocate for respondent No.1.
2. After hearing the petitioner, the Court directed the office to issue notice vide order dated 25.09.2010.
3. Subsequently, vide order dated 29.10.2010, the Court, by way of interim order, restrained the respondents from proceeding further with third inquiry until the next date of hearing. The said order dated 29.10.2010 reads thus:
"Respondents no.1, 2 and 3 are restrained from proceeding further with 3rd inquiry until the next date of hearing , viz. 25th November 2010. Adjourned to 25th November 2010."
4. Thereafter, the Court passed order dated 25.11.2010 which reads thus:
"Ms.Moxa Thakkar, learned Assistant Government Pleader, prays for time in order to get a legible copy of the memorandum of the petition. List on 24.1.2011.
The interim relief granted by order dated 29.10.2010, shall continue till then."
5. The said order was followed by order dated 14.07.2011 which reads thus:
"Learned AGP, Mr. Sharma submitted that District Education Officer has filed affidavit against present petition, but unfortunately that has not been found placed in present petition. Therefore, let registry may inquire and also learned AGP may inquire whether such affidavit is filed on record or not. If it is not filed, let that may be filed in present petition on next date of hearing i.e. on 12.8.2011. The interim relief granted by order dated 29th April,2010, shall remain continued till 12.8.2011."
6. Another order dated 26.08.2011 came to be passed which reads thus:
"S.O.
to 30th August, 2011. Interim relief extended till then."
7. Recently, on 14th February 2012 below mentioned order is passed "Ms.Kruti M. Shah, learned counsel for respondent No.1 states that the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of respondent No.4 is not served upon respondent No.1 herein. Ms.Megha Chitaliya, learned A.G.P. has tendered a copy of the same today.
Hence, S.O. to 28.02.2012. Interim relief stands extended till then."
8. The abovementioned orders in chronology demonstrate that the petition is pending since 23rd September 2010 and that Court has granted interim order on 29th October 2010 which has remained in operation until now. Any application has not been taken out by any of the respondents requesting to vacate or modify the interim relief. Since last about 2 years the petition has been rotating on admission Board. The reply affidavit has been filed.
9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances mentioned at the time of hearing and the nature of the orders which are challenged in present petition, it appears that petition deserves consideration. Hence, Rule. Ms. Kruti Shah, learned Advocate for respondent No.1 waives service of process of Rule on behalf of respondent No.1, Mr. Nanavati, learned Advocate for the respondent No.2 waives service of process of Rule on behalf of respondent No.2 and Ms. Megha Chitaliya, learned AGP waives service of process of Rule on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
10. The interim order dated 29.10.2010 shall continue to operate till final hearing or until any other or further order is passed at the request of the respondents.
(K.M.THAKER, J.) jani Top