Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

LOKESH KATARA AND ANR. versus HONBLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT

Decided
14 December 2016
Judges listed
T.S. THAKUR (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[2016] 9 S.C.R. 983 · 2016 INSC 1126

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

1

These proceedings have been instituted under Article 32 of the Constitution by two petitioners who are stated to be working as Systems Officers and Systems Assistants since 2009 on a contractual basis. The petitioners state that Systems Officers and Systems Assistants were engaged in the High Court and the district courts in the State of Gujarat in consoni\nce with the National Policy and Action Plan prepared by the E- Committee. In 2013, the Government of Gujarat sanctioned pos!s of Systems Officers and Systems Assistants in the regular cadre. An amendment was made to the recruitment rules in 2015 for filling up these posts by direct recruitment. The existing Systems Officers and Systems Assistants working in various district courts submitted a representation seeking their absorption. An online skill test was conducted. Another representation was submitted on 16 March 2016. However, the representation for absorption was rejected on 26 May 2016. On 9 September 2016 an advertisement was published by the Registrar (Recruitment and Finance) inviting applications for thirty posts of Systems Officers and thirty posts of Systems Assistants. The Writ Petition has been inst~tuted seeking to challenge the advertisement issued by the High Court and for a mandamus for incorporating a provision in the recruitment rules for the absorption of the petitioners and similarly placed persons.

pp. 983–984, margin E

2

We are not inclined to entertain a Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. The petitioners have a remedy available of moving the High Court on the judicial side under Article 226 of the Constitution. In the circumstances, while leaving it open to the petitioners to institute appropriate proceedings as they may be advised, we decline to entertain this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution.

p. 984, margin C

3

The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.

p. 984, margin D