Dismissed

Prasad Vijay Inamdar v. Maharashtra Public Service Commission and Ors.

Bombay HC24 Aug 2005WP/642/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition challenging the 1998 selection list for Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector posts, the Court held that the petition became infructuous due to afflux of time as the selection process was already completed. The Court dismissed the petition for lack of material evidence regarding any illegality.

What did the court decide?

Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.

Prasad Vijay Inamdar Vs Maharashtra Public Service… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

:1:

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.642 OF 1999

¶5

Prasad Vijay Inamdar ) adult, occupation service ) residing at A-94, Asara Colony ) Motgi Road, Solapur )...Petitioner.

¶6

Versus

¶7

Maharashtra Public Service ) Commission, through the Deputy ) Secretary and Examination ) Controller, having their Office ) at Bank of India Building, M.G. ) Road, Bombay - 400 001. ) ) 2. The State of Maharashtra )...Respondents. --Mr. S.G. Kudle for the petitioner. Mr. V.S. Gokhale, GP for respondent Nos. 1 and 2

¶8

CORAM: R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR & V. M. KANADE, JJ.

¶9

DATE: 24th August, 2005.

¶10

ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per V. M. KANADE, J.)

¶11

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶12

2.	The Petitioner,	by	this petition,	is	challenging
the	selection list,	which	is prepared	by	respondent
No.1	- Maharashtra	Public	Service	Commi	ssion in
respect	of the post	of	Assistant	Motor	Vehicle
Inspector	consequent to	the	examination	held in	1998

¶13

by invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court under

¶14

Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶15

:2:

¶16

3.	Petition w	as	admit	ted,	ho	wever,	no in	terim	relief
was	granted	at	the	time	of	granting	rule.		Further,
from	the record,	it	can	be	seen	that	the name	of	the
petitioner	No.3	has		been	deleted	by	virtue	of	the

¶17

order passed by the Additional Registrar dated

¶18

02/11/2001.

¶19

Brief facts which are necessary for the purpose of

¶20

deciding this Writ Petition are as under:-

¶21

5.	An advertisement appeared	in	Daily News-paper
"Sanchar"	dated 08/05/1998,	inviting	applications for
the	post of the Assistant	Motor	Vehicle Inspectors.
The	petitioner, pursuant to	the	said advertisement,
made	an application and was c	alled	for oral interview.
However,	before the oral interview	com	menced, he was
found	medically unfit and, th	erefore,	he was rejected
on	medical ground. Thereafter,	on	05/01/1999, the
Selection	List was declared for	the	post of Assistant
Motor	Vehicle Inspector. The	princip	al grievance of
the	petitioner is that the respo	ndent	No.1 did not
complete	the selection process	as	per the eligibility
criteria	laid down in the a	dvertisem	ent. Further, it
was	contended that the selection	list	was prepared on
extraneous	consideration and	the	petitioner was

¶22

		:3:
deliberately	igno	red and was	erroneously	held	to	be
unfit.	The	learned counsel	for	the		petitioner,
therefore, subm	itted that sel	ection list was liable to
be set aside.

¶23

6. It is	not possible	to acce	pt the submission	s made
by the lear	ned counsel	appearing	on behalf of	the
petitioner. T	he petition	was adm	itted and, at	the
time of a	dmission, no	interim	relief was	granted.
Consequently, a	fter 1999,	furthe	r procedure	after
preparation of	Selection List	must	have been	completed
by this time.	This fact	is not	denied by the	learned
Counsel appearing	on beha	lf	of the	petitioner.
Consequently,	by afflux o	f time,	the present	Petition
has become	infructuous.	Even o	therwise there is	no
substance in	the submission	made	by the	learned
advocate for	the petitioner.	Ther	e is no mate	rial on
record to	indicate that	the sele	ction procedure	is
vitiated on	account of	any	material irregularity	or
that the res	pondents have	acted	in an	arbitrary
manner. In	the absence	of any	material on re	cord, it
is difficult to	come to	a	conclusion tha	t the
selection list	is	prepared	on	extraneous
consideration.	There is,	therefore,	no merit in	the

¶24

contentions raised by the learned advocate appearing

¶25

on behalf of the petitioner.

¶26

:4:

¶27

Accordingly, the Petition is dismissed. Rule is

¶28

discharged with no order as to costs.

¶29

(R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J.)

¶30

(V. M. KANADE, J.)

Prasad Vijay Inamdar v. Maharashtra Public Service Commission and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prasad Vijay Inamdar v. Maharashtra Public Service Commission and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jagannath Ganpat Purav Vs the Maharashtra State Electricity Board and Ors.

Shri v.R.Joshi Vs Maharashtra State Textile Corpn.Ltd. and Anr.

Ali Ahmed Khan and Anr. Vs Municipal Corpn. of Gr. Bombay and Ors. and Mrs. Fahmida and Ors.

Pimpri Chinchwad New Town Development Authority, Pune Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri Arun Harishchandra Todekar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shaniwar Laxman Patil and Ors. Vs the Central Railways and Ors.