(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI) Learned counsel Ms. Mamta R. Vyas appearing for the appellant has urged that before the writ petition was dismissed, an amendment application was filed before the learned Single Judge on 27.4.2012 by which the relief was claimed that the undated order of August, 2010 by which the appellant's representation has been rejected be quashed. In the representation order, it was mentioned that the representation may be decided in pursuance of the order passed by this Court. Therefore, according to learned counsel for the appellant, there was no suppression of fact and even if at the time of drafting of the writ petition, the fact could not be stated that earlier writ petition was filed, by way of an amendment, the said fact was brought on record that earlier writ petition has been decided in pursuance of which the representation has also been decided which is sought to be challenged by way of an amendment. But this amendment application has not been considered by the learned Single Judge. In this view of the matter, the appeal deserves admission. Hence, ADMIT. D.S. Permitted.
ORDER IN CIVIL APPLICATION No.9946 of 2012 Ms.
Mamta R. Vyas, learned counsel appearing for the appellant states that she is not pressing the present Civil Application for stay at this stage. It is accordingly dismissed as not pressed at this stage.
[V.
M. SAHAI, J.] [G.
B. SHAH, J.] Savariya