This court dismissed a writ petition challenging the appointment of respondent No.6 as a displaced person. The petitioner was ineligible for the Extension Officer post as he lacked a Marathi medium B.Ed. degree.
The writ petition was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 5942 OF 2008
Nandlal Kacharu Shinde. ..... Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...... ..... Respondents.
Mr. Sachin S. Punde for the Petitioner. Mrs. M. P. Thakur, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mrs. Priyadarshini A. Birje for Respondent Nos.3 and 4. Ms. Deepa Kamath for Respondent No.5. Mr.Aniket Ranade i/by Mr. S. M. Railkar for Respondent No.6.
CORAM : BILAL NAZKI and R. V. MORE, JJ.
DATED : 8TH DECEMBER, 2008.
P.C.:
The petitioner challenges the appointment of respondent No.6 on the ground that he was appointed as a displaced person but the certificate which was required to be given was given by respondent No.6 on 17th June, 2008. He filed application on 11th June, 2008 and the last date for submission of application was 13th June, 2008. It has been made clear in the advertisement itself that the complete application should be filed by the last date and no document would be entertained thereafter.
2
was filed on 17th June, 2008. But a certificate issued earlier, though not by the Competent Authority, that the petitioner was displaced person had also been filed. Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that there were only two candidates being the petitioner and respondent No.6. The petitioner is not himself eligible even for consideration because in accordance with the advertisement a person eligible for appointment as Extension officer is needed to have B. Ed. Degree in Marathi medium. The petitioner is not B.Ed. in Marathi medium. Learned Counsel for the petitioner conceded that the petitioner has passed his B.Ed. in Hindi medium which is also disputed by respondent No.6. In any case, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner has done B.Ed. in Hindi medium but the petitioner contends that he has passed similar examination in Marathi medium. He might have passed any examination but on his own showing he has not passed his B.Ed. in Marathi medium and as such he is not eligible for consideration for this post.
should interfere. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere in the appointment of respondent No.6 as a displaced person when the petitioner was ineligible for the post due to lack of a Marathi medium B.Ed. degree.
Whether the delay in filing the required certificate renders the appointment of respondent No.6 valid in the absence of eligible candidates.
Nandlal Kacharu Shinde
The State of Maharashtra
Ors.
Bilal Nazki
R. V. More
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
