Disposed

Chandrashekhar Moreshwar Tembhe v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC16 Feb 2006WP/3971/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought relaxation of age limit for government appointment. Court declined to interfere with pending appointments but directed Government to sympathetically consider petitioner's age relaxation application within six weeks, noting existing labour practice dispute.

What did the court decide?

Government to sympathetically consider petitioner's case for age relaxation within six weeks.

Chandrashekhar Moreshwar Tembhe Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2006)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.3971 OF 2005

¶4

Chandrashekhar M. Tembhe. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶5

...Petitioner.

¶6

...Respondents.

¶7

Mr. Y. M. Pendse for the Petitioner. Mr. V. P. Malvankar, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. S. P. Thorat for Respondent Nos.3 and 4.

¶8

CORAM : F. I. REBELLO AND DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, JJ.

¶9

February 16, 2006 .

¶10

P.C.

¶11

The Petitioner approached this Court, seeking a relief

¶12

amongst others, that the maximum age limit be relaxed and not to

¶13

make any appointment pursuant to the result declared of the interviews dated 12^th April 2005. No interim relief was granted. On behalf of Respondent No.3, it is pointed out that the persons who were selected have been appointed and have since joined. Considering that, in our opinion, in so far as those appointments are concerned, it will not be possible for us to interfere with the same.

¶14

The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, however,

¶15

¶16

contends that there were altogether 18 posts. Out of these, only six appointments have been done. It is his contention that his case was rejected only because of age bar. On behalf of Respondent No.3, it is pointed out that the applicant's case was rejected not only on the ground of age bar, but also as he has not put in continuous employment. At this stage, we do not propose to go into the controversy as the Petitioner's case for unfair labour practice is pending before the Industrial Court.

¶17

Considering the G.Rs. dated 8^th March 1999 and 17^th August 2004, if the Petitioner applies for relaxation, then on the special facts of this case, Government to sympathetically consider the case of the Petitioner for relaxation of the age and pass appropriate orders accordingly. The entire exercise to be completed within six weeks of the Petitioner making an application. If the Petitioner's application for age relaxation is considered, Respondent No.3 to consider his case sympathetically, considering his contentions.

¶18

With the above observations, the petition is disposed of.

¶19

¶20

No order as to costs.

¶21

( F. I. Rebello, J.)

¶22

( Dr.D. Y. Chandrachud, J.)

Chandrashekhar Moreshwar Tembhe v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrashekhar Moreshwar Tembhe v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhaskar Eknath Gotis Vs Adivasi Pragati Mandal and Ors.

Dilip Balkrishna Shikhare and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Maharashtra Ice Manufacturers Welfare Association Vs Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation and Ors.

Royal Society of Bombay and Anr. Vs the Mira Bhayandar Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Dnyaneshwar Baburao Navale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Rajaram Chimaji Karale and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.