A. P. RAVANI, J. ( 1 ) THE application is for amendment of the petition which is directed against the Government Resolution (Annexure C) dated December 11 1586 By issuing this Resolution the Government has directed to implement point No. 1 of the agreement dated 4/06/1986 arrived at between the representatives of respondent No. 3-Union and the State Government. By this resolution it is ordered that in the direct recruitment candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes/scheduled Tribes for whom reservation is made and who come on merit will be counted against unreserved vacancies. Reservation percentage will be applied in addition to those who come on merit. The petition is filed on 17/12/1987 On Dece 21/12/1987 this Court (Coram: J. P. Desai J.) has granted rule and has also granted ad interim relief in terms of para 12 (B) and 12 (C) of the petition. Thus by ad interim relief implementation of the impugned resolution at Annexure C has been stayed and the respondent-State of Gujarat is restrained from appointing any candidate who has applied in reserve category in excess of the respective quota (i. e. 7% and 14% ). The respondent-State has also been restrained from allowing any candidate who has applied in reserve category to be appointed on merit in excess of the quota for reserve category of candidates i. e. 7% and 14%. ( 2 ) THE resolution Annexure C is challenged mainly on the ground that it is contrary to the agreement arrived at by and between petitioner No. 1-Union and the Government and it is also contrary to the terms of settlement dated 18/08/1965 and the previous resolution which are produced at Annexures A and B to the petition respectively. It is also contended in the petition that once a candidate belonging to reserve category and particularly that of SC/st avails of the benefit of reservation he cannot be permitted to change the label. He must then assume the character of un-reserved category of candidates. It is contended that such candidates cannot be permitted to have the benefits of reservation during the entire career of his service. He must then assume the character of un-reserved category of candidates. It is contended that such candidates cannot be permitted to have the benefits of reservation during the entire career of his service. ( 3 ) BY way of amendment application the petitioners seek to challenge the vires of Rule 2 (a) read with Rule 4 of the Assistant (in the Upper Division of the Subordinate Secretariate Services) Recruitment Rules 1988 The Rules have been published by notification dated 16/06/1983 The amendment is sought mainly on the ground that the Rules have been annexed as one of the annexures in the affidavitin-reply filed by the Government and in the affidavit-in-reply reliance is placed by the Government on these Recruitment Rules. Therefore it has become necessary to challenge the same is contend that the prayer for amendment is in continuation of the answer given by the Government. ( 4 ) THE Government has served the affidavit-in-reply upon the petitioners Counsel on 12/07/1988 the application for amendment is moved on 28/10/1988 It is the contention of the petitioners that only after the service of the affidavit-in-reply upon the Counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners came to know about the Rules in question and hence it has become necessary to amend the petition. ( 5 ) BARE rending of the impugned resolution at Annexure C would show that the resolution is not passed by the Government in exercise of powers conferred upon it of derived under any of the provisions of the Rules in question. In fact the resolution is dated 11/12/1986 while the Rules has been published by notification dated 16/06/1988 i. e. even after the filing of the petition which has been filed in December 1987 The amendment pertains to the Rules relating to Assistants in the Upper Division of the Subordinate Secretariate Service Class-III while the impugned resolution and the petition pertain to all the cadres of government service. Thus it cannot be said tads the amendment of the petition is necessary for deciding the question to whether the resolution Annexures C is legal and valid or not. The legality and validity of the resolution is to the decided without any reference whatsoever to the Rules in question. ( 6 ) IN para 11 of the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the Government there is reference to certain Rules. The legality and validity of the resolution is to the decided without any reference whatsoever to the Rules in question. ( 6 ) IN para 11 of the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the Government there is reference to certain Rules. It reads as follows"relaxation granted to SC/st candidates in upper age limit is in accordance with the provisions made in RRs framed under Art. 300 of the Constitution of India. "without making any reference to specific Rules published on 16/06/1988 in the affidavit-in-reply a copy of the said Rules is produced at page 48 of the affidavit-in-reply. It is not understood as to why reference to the Recruitment Rules has been said in the affidavit-in- reply. At say rate there is no understandable reason why a copy of the Recruitment Rules published by notification dated 16/06/1988 should have been annexed to the affidavit-in-reply. Reference to the Rules and particularly the aforesaid paragraph extracted from the affidavit-in-reply was not at. all necessary and not relevant for submitting reply to the averments made in the petition" ( 7 ) IN above view of the matter the learned Advocate General appearing for the Government was called upon show why this particular part of the affidavit-in-reply reproduced hereinabove should not be struck off. The learned Advocate General submitted that while drafting the affidavit-in-reply Rules of 16/06/1988 which are produced at page 48 of the affidavit-in-reply were not in contemplation. In his submission the Rules which were intended to the referred to were the Gujarat Civil Services Classification And Recruitment (General) Rules 1967 But whichever be the Rules intended to be referred to in the affidavit-in-reply the question as regards the necessity and relevances of the same remains unexplained. No satisfactory explanation whatsoever has been submitted on behalf of the respondents as to why a copy of the Recruitment Rules published by notification dated 16/06/1988 has been annexed to the affidavit-in-reply. Similarly there is no satisfactory explanation as to why the aforesaid extracted portion in the affidavit- in-reply was required to be introduced. ( 8 ) THUS it becomes abundently clear that the aforesaid averments in the affidavit-in-reply and the production of Recruitment Rules of 16/06/1988 is unnecessary and irrelevant for the purpose of deciding the legality and validity of the impugned resolution Annexure C. It was this part of the affidavit-in-reply. ( 8 ) THUS it becomes abundently clear that the aforesaid averments in the affidavit-in-reply and the production of Recruitment Rules of 16/06/1988 is unnecessary and irrelevant for the purpose of deciding the legality and validity of the impugned resolution Annexure C. It was this part of the affidavit-in-reply. Which promoted and according to the petitioners compelled the petitioners to pray for amendment in the petition. However to avoid confusion and to avoid introduction of unnecessary and irrelevant matters in the controversy the Court proposed to strike off the aforesaid part of the affidavit-in-reply. This should have served the purpose of the petitioners and the petitioners should be satisfied when the Court proposed to direct the striking off of the part of the affidavit-reply which compelled the petitioners to file amendment application. If this were a genuine cause and not a ruse this particular pat of the affidavit-in-reply being struck off the petitioners should have no cause for pressing the application for amendment. But strangely enough the learned Counsel for the petitioners objected to this course being adopted by the Court and submitted that the Court had no power strike off ally part of the pleadings. ( 9 ) IT is not only the power of the Court but it is the bounden duty of the Court to see that there are proper pleadings. Nothing unnecessary frivolous or vexatious or which may tend to prejudice embarrass or delay the fair trial of a case should form part of the pleadings of the parties. When Court finds that any averment in the pleadings of either of the party is likely to prejudice embarrass or delay fair trial of the case or which is otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court the Court may direct that such part of the pleadings be struck off. In fact the Code of Civil Procedure (Order VI Rule 16) confers such powers on Court. This power so conferred on Court is coupled with a duty to exercise the same as and when occasion arises. In this case as held hereinabove the averments in the affidavit- in-reply which have been extracted and referred to above and reference to the Recruitment Rules is unnecessary and irrelevant. In fact it has driven the petitioners to file the application for amendment in the petition. In this case as held hereinabove the averments in the affidavit- in-reply which have been extracted and referred to above and reference to the Recruitment Rules is unnecessary and irrelevant. In fact it has driven the petitioners to file the application for amendment in the petition. To permit the respondents to retain this particular averments in the affidavit-in-reply would certainly delay the fair trial of the petition It is the right of every party to the litigation to have the case against him presented in an intelligible form so that he may not be embarrassed in meeting with the same. This is the reason why the aforesaid provision has been made in Civil Procedure Code. To meet the ends of justice and to see that the process of Court is not abused the principles underlying the provisions of Order VI Rule 16 of Civil Procedure Code can very well be invoked and applied in this case also. ( 10 ) IT is true that in view of the explanation to Sec. 141 of the Civil Procedure Code petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India is not proceeding to which provisions of Civil Procedure Code may apply. But there is nothing in the explanation to Sec. 141 of Civil Procedure Code or in any other provision of law which precludes this Court to apply certain principles underlying the provisions of Civil Procedure Code. The Court can and may do so in exercise of its inherent powers. The High Court has such inherent power even apart from Sec. 151 of the Civil Procedure Code. In the case of Union of India v Sahkari Khand Udyog Mandli Limited AIR 1981 Gujarat 102: ( 1980 (2) GLR 181 ) Division Bench of this High Court has observed as follows (at page 185 of GLR):"so far as the High Courts 2re concerned even apart from Sec. 151 of the Civil Procedure Code we have inherent jurisdiction to do all things which are necessary to be done for the purpose of administering justice and working out the rights of the parties". In view of the aforesaid settled legal position the argument that the Court has no power to direct that certain parts of the pleadings be struck off has no merits and the same has got to be rejected. In view of the aforesaid settled legal position the argument that the Court has no power to direct that certain parts of the pleadings be struck off has no merits and the same has got to be rejected. Incidentally it may be noted that no express provision of law has been pointed out to me which empowers the Court to grant amendment in the petition. For granting amendment in the memo of petition also the Court will have to resort to its inherent jurisdiction to do all things which are necessary to be done for the purpose of administering justice and working out the rights of the parties. While granting or refusing amendment in the memo of petition the Court necessarily looks at the principles embodied in the provisions of Civil Procedure Code relating to amendment of pleadings i. e. Order VI Rule 17. In the matter of a petition in the same subject matter after withdrawal of an earlier petition unconditionally the Courts have invoked the principles of res judicata and/or public policy which are contained in Sec. 11 of Civil Procedure Code and in Order XXIli of Civil Procedure Code. Therefore in the instant case all that is necessary for the Court is to examine as to whether it is necessary to strike out the part of the averments made in the affidavit-in-reply for the purpose of administering justice and working out the rights of the parties. ( 11 ) NOW the question may be examined from the point of view of propriety and reasonableness of such course being adopted by the Court. On account of striking off of the aforesaid averments from the affidavit-in-reply all that is sought to be done is to remove embarrassment that may be caused to the petitioners. On account of the aforesaid averments in the affidavit-in-reply. the petitioners have not acquired any right whatsoever. If this part of the pleadings is struck off the petitioners are not to be in any way adversely affected. On the contrary they will have straight and intelligible pleadings to meet with. In fact the stand taken by the petitioners is not only unreasonable but may also lead to an inference that the petitioners have advanced this particular averment in the affidavit-in reply as an excuse (it is not a reason or a genuine ground) for filing application for amendment. In fact the stand taken by the petitioners is not only unreasonable but may also lead to an inference that the petitioners have advanced this particular averment in the affidavit-in reply as an excuse (it is not a reason or a genuine ground) for filing application for amendment. From this conduct of the petitioners it appears clear that somehow or other petitioners wish to delay the proceedings and are trying to abuse the process of the Court. ( 12 ) IN the petition what is required to be decided is the constitutional validity of the impugned resolution (Annexure C to the petition ). The resolution is dated 11/12/1986 The Recruitment Rules are of June 1988. The resolution is not passed under the provisions of the Rules. The Government does not claim powers under any of the provisions of the Rules in question for passing the resolution. Even in the affidavit-in-reply it is not the case of the Government that the power to pass the resolution is derived by the Government under the Rules in question. Therefore reference to Recruitment Rules in the affidavit-in-reply and production of copy of June 1988 Rules is unnecessary and irrelevant. At any rate if reference is made by inadvertence it is an unintelligible act. If it is done consciously the same cannot be explained except by drawing adverse inference against the draftsman of the affidavit-in-reply and the Counsel who approved the same. Be that as it may. That is not the question which is required to be gone into by me at this stage. ( 13 ) AT this stage it may be observed that reference to Recruitment Rules in the affidavit-in-reply and the production of Recruitment Rules of 1988 remains unexplained. It is hoped that the Government Counsels while drafting affidavit-in-reply in such vital and important matters affecting large number of people will take little more care and see that unnecessary and irrelevant averments are not introduced and nothing which is irrelevant to the issues involved in the petition is produced together with or as part of the affidavit-in- reply. In the instant case it may be noted that even the learned Advocate General submitted that not the Rules of 1988 which have been produced together with the affidavit-in-reply but the Rules of 1967 may be in the mind of the draftsman of the affidavit-in-reply. In the instant case it may be noted that even the learned Advocate General submitted that not the Rules of 1988 which have been produced together with the affidavit-in-reply but the Rules of 1967 may be in the mind of the draftsman of the affidavit-in-reply. This ambiguity itself shows that proper care has not been taken in drafting the affidavit-in-reply. ( 14 ) IF the amendment as prayed for is granted several complications and confusions will arise. It is well settled principle that once the amendment is granted it would operate with retrospective effect as if it was there in the pleadings right from the beginning. If amendment of the petition by which vires of statutory Rules ate challenged is granted immediately the petition would become entertainable by Division Bench of the High Court. This is so in view of the High Court Appellate Side Rules because a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India in which vires of statutory Rules are challenged is entertainable by Division Bench only. As a natural corollary of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Pandurang v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1987 SC 936 if in a matter entertainable by Division Bench any order is passed by a learned single Judge of the High Court the order would be a nullity. In the instant case initial order granting rule and granting ad interim relief has been passed by a learned single Judge of this High Court (Coram: J. P. Desai J.) on 21/12/1987 Thereafter the ad interim relief has been modified by me on 28/10/1988 Once the matter becomes entertainable by Division Belch and that too with retrospective effect all the aforesaid orders would become nullity and would cease to be in operation with retrospective effect This would introduce serious complications in the further proceedings of the petition. ( 15 ) MOREOVER no amendment can be granted if it causes prejudice to the other side. In the instant case the respondents have acquired valuable right of appeal even against the interim orders that may be passed by learned single Judge of the High Court in this petition. It is trite knowledge that certain interim orders and undoubtedly final orders that may be passed on this petition can be challenged before a Division Bench of this High Court by way of Letters Patent Appeal. It is trite knowledge that certain interim orders and undoubtedly final orders that may be passed on this petition can be challenged before a Division Bench of this High Court by way of Letters Patent Appeal. Once the amendments as Frayed for is granted this right of the respondents will be taken away. This would cause great prejudice to the respondents. ( 16 ) IF the amendment as prayed for is granted the respondents will be required to deal with the legality and validity of the impugned resolution Annexure C which is challenged in the original petition itself and they will also be required to deal with the legality and validity of the Assistant (in the Upper Division of the Subordinate Secretariate Service) Recruitment Rules 1988 On grant of the amendment the petition would become composite one praying for two different reliefs one in respect of resolution Annexure C and another in respect of the aforesaid Rules. In view of the provisions of High Court Appellate Side Rules 1960 (Chapter 17 Rule 1) the petition itself would become not maintenable. The petition would suffer from the vice of multi-fariousness. Such multi-fariousness would cause serious embarrassment to the other side. It would not be convenient to the Court also to deal with two different subjects in one single petition. There will be two separate and distinct matters rolled in to one petition one pertaining to legality and validity of resolution Annexure C and another pertaining to the legality and validity of the Recruitment Rules of 1988. Thus to avoid unnecessary and avoidable confusion and complications it is necessary that the amendment be not granted ( 17 ) IT may again be noted that refusal or grant of amendment would not in any way determine any right or liability of the parties. As indicated hereinabove the amendment as prayed for is not at all necessary nor relevant or at any rate it does not pertain to any vital question pertaining to the merits of the case and the rights of the parties. The petitioners will not be precluded to challenge the vires of Recruitment Rules of 1988 by filing separate petition before the Court of appropriate forum. By refusing the amendment all that is sought to be done is to regulate the proceedings of the petition. The petitioners will not be precluded to challenge the vires of Recruitment Rules of 1988 by filing separate petition before the Court of appropriate forum. By refusing the amendment all that is sought to be done is to regulate the proceedings of the petition. By refusing to grant amendment the Court does not decide any question which touches the merits of the controversy between the parties. Thus by refusing to grant amendment the petitioners would not in any way be affected adversely while on the other side if the amendment is granted serious prejudice will be caused to the respondents. ( 18 ) EVEN if the respondent. State Government is not directed to strike out the particular averment in the affidavit-in-reply then also grant of amendment in the facts of the case is neither just nor proper inasmuch as amendment of the petition is not necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. The real controversy between the parties is with regard to the constitutional validity of resolution Annexure C dated December 11 1986 The power to issue such resolution flows from the constitutional provision and not from the provisions of the Rules in question. The legality and validity of the resolution has to be adjudicated by taking into consideration the constitutional provisions and not the provisions of the Rules in question. In fact the Rules have been published in the month of June 1988 i. e. much after the resolution is passed by the Government. Even the respondent-Stated Government does not claim that the resolution is passed in exercise of powers conferred upon the Government under any of the provisions of the Rules. It is fairly conceded on behalf of the State Government that the aforesaid averments in the affidavit-in-reply is merely incidental. Therefore for the purpose of determining the questions in controversy between the parties amendment of the petition is not at all necessary. The petitioners have tried to take advantage of the reference made to the Rules in question in the affidavit-in-reply. Assuming for a moment that the petitioners have some genuine grievance with regard to the reference to the Rules of July 1988 in the affidavit-in-reply then also that grievance is also removed by ordering that that particular part in the affidavit-in-reply be struck off. Assuming for a moment that the petitioners have some genuine grievance with regard to the reference to the Rules of July 1988 in the affidavit-in-reply then also that grievance is also removed by ordering that that particular part in the affidavit-in-reply be struck off. ( 19 ) AS indicated hereinabove the petitioners obtained ex parte ad interim relief on 21/12/1987 On account of the operation of ad interim relief against the respondents even the result of the competitive examination far recruitment to posts in Gujarat Administratire Service Class-I and Gujarat Civil Services Class-I and Class-II held in June 1986 and September 1937 could not be declared. Some candidates who have appeared in the examinations are constrained to file Special Civil Application No. 2927 of 1988 and pray that rule granted in Special Civil Application No. 6691 of 1987 be recalled and revoked. The Court (Coram: S. B. Majmudar J.) has directed on 16 that Special Civil Application No. 2927 of 1988 be placed with Special Civil Application No. 6691 of 1987. It was only after modification of the ad interim relief by order dated 28/10/1988 that result of the examination is declared and two separate merit lists one without taking into account the impugned Government Resolution Annexure C and another after taking into consideration the impugned resolution Annexure C have been prepared and published and have been forwarded to the Government. Even now no appointment is made on account of ad interim relief. The petitioners having obtained ex parte ad interim relief way back in December 1987 seek to amend the petition which as held hereinabove is unnecessary and irrelevant. The amendment prayed for is not bona fide and the same is actuated with the sole object to delay the proceedings. The prayer for amendment is nothing but an expression of desire on the part of the petitioners to abuse the process of Court. If the amendment is allowed it would be nothing but assisting and aiding a party who seeks to abuse the process of the Court. The Court cannot be a party to such a course being adopted. The Court has to prevent abuse of process of Court and not to assist the same. If the amendment is allowed it would be nothing but assisting and aiding a party who seeks to abuse the process of the Court. The Court cannot be a party to such a course being adopted. The Court has to prevent abuse of process of Court and not to assist the same. ( 20 ) IN the result in the facts of the case it is directed that the following sentence in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of respondent-State of Gujarat occuring in para 11 (page 30) thereof shall stand struck off from the pleadings:"the relaxation granted to SC/st candidates in upper age limit is in accordance with the provisions made in RRs framed under Art. 309 of the Constitution of India". and the Recruitment Rules published by notification dated 16/06/1988 produced together with the affidavit-in-reply shall not be treated as forming part of the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent-State Government. The application for amendment submitted by the petitioners is hereby rejected. . ( 21 ) AT this stage the learned Counsel for the petitioners requests that the hearing of interim relief be deferred for a period of one week after the petitioners receive copy of this order so as to enable the petitioners to challenge the legality and validity of the aforesaid order rejecting the application for amendment before the appropriate forum. In his submission the aforesaid order itself is nullity and the petitioners would not get an opportunity to challenge the legality and validity of the same if the petitioners are required to proceed further with the hearing of the interim relief. There is no merit in the request whatsoever. It is strange logic. According to the petitioners the order refusing amendment is a nullity then how an order granting amendment by the same Court in the same proceeding legal and valid ? There is on merit in the argument. The request is not bona fide. For on reason or another the petitioners wish to delay further proceedings of the matter. Having obtained ex parte ad interim relief in their favour the petitioners are not justified in requesting for defering of the hearing of interim relief To do so would amount to ignoring the mandate given by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd. AIR 1984 SC 1254. Hence the request is rejected. Order accordingly. .