Dismissed

Dr. Gangadhar v. Kayande- Patil v the Dy. Secretary - Maharashtra Public Service Commission and Ors.

Bombay HC10 Oct 2008WP/5290/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought appointment as Director of Education, claiming eligibility under a clause allowing 40% relaxation for exceptional qualifications. The court dismissed the petition, refusing to assess whether his qualifications were exceptional due to the term's undefined nature and lack of comparative standard.

What the court decided

AI extract

Dr. Gangadhar v. Kayande- Patil Vs the Dy. Secretary… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2008)

¶1

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 5290 OF 2008

¶5

 Dr. Gangadhar V.Kayande-Patil ...Petitioner

¶6

 Versus

¶7

 The Dy. Secretary,

¶8

 Maharashtra Publice Service Commission,

¶9

 Mumbai & Ors. ...Respondents

¶10

 Mr. S.K.Shinde, Advocate, i/b. Mr. Sagar Kasar,

¶11

 Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

 Mr. V.S.Masurkar, Govt. Pleader, for Respondent Nos. 1

¶13

 to 3.

¶14

CORAM: BILAL NAZKI & J.H.BHATIA,JJ.

¶15

DATED: 10th October, 2008.

¶16

P.C.

¶17

 1. The petitioner wants that the Maharashtra Public

¶18

 Service Commission should consider him for the post of
 Director of Education (Higher Education), although he

¶19

 admits that he does not possess the qualifications

¶20

¶21

 to be considered in view of the Advertisement,

¶22

 being Advertisement Number-024/2008. The prescribed
 qualifications include the teaching experience of 15
 years in an affiliated College of Arts, Science and
 administrative experience as Head of an affiliated
 College or at senior levels in a University or in a
 State Department of Education for at least 5 years. He
 submits that he does not have the requisite experience.
 However, he submits that his qualification should be
 treated to be exceptional and he should be declared to
 be eligible in terms of para 5.2 of the advertisement.
 This para lays down the period of experience can be
 relaxed upto 40% in favour of candidates having
 exceptional qualification or experience or both. We are
 afraid that this Court will not be in a position to
 decide whether the petitioner has exceptional
 qualifications as exceptional qualifications are also
 not defined and when one ventures into the field of

¶23

 deciding whether the qualifications held by the
 petitioner were exceptional qualifications they should
 be with reference to the qualifications held by others.
 The petitioner is a professor in the University. It is
 expected that every professor in the University should
 have a Master’s Degree and a Ph.D. and have some papers
 published. Therefore, on the face of it, we do not feel
 that we can draw a conclusion that the petitioner

¶24

¶25

 possesses exceptional qualifications.

¶26

 2. For this reason, we do not find merit in the
 petition which is accordingly dismissed.

¶27

(BILAL NAZKI,J.)

¶28

(J.H.BHATIA,J.)

Dr. Gangadhar v. Kayande- Patil v the Dy. Secretary - Maharashtra Public Service Commission and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Dr. Gangadhar v. Kayande- Patil v the Dy. Secretary - Maharashtra Public Service Commission and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Shankar Vishwasrao Deshmukh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Pandurang Haribhau Karhad Vs Union of India and Anr.

Anantkumar Gopinath Dharia and Ors. Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer and Ors.

School Board of Municipal Corporation of the City of Malegaon and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bhimrao Harku Wadile Vs the State of Maharasthra and Othes

L.M. Jamkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.