Dismissed

Shri. Vikramaditya Mukund Gaonkar v. State of Goa through Chief Secretary and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC1 Dec 2008WP/645/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition challenging the selection of Respondent No.3 for the post of Excise Inspector. The judgment rejected the claim that a diploma should be treated as a post-graduate qualification and declined to interfere with the oral interview marks allocation.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed.

Shri. Vikramaditya Mukund Gaonkar Vs State of Goa… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2008)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 645 OF 2008

¶4

Shri Vikramaditya Mukund Gaonkar ... Petitioner

¶5

versus

¶6

State of Goa through Chief Secretary and two others. ... Respondents

¶7

Ms. Asha Dessai,. Advocate for the Petitioner.

¶8

Mr. S. S. Kantak, Advocate General with Ms. S. Mordekar, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶9

Mr. D. P. Bhise, Advocate for Respondent No.3.

¶10

CORAM : A. P. DESHPANDE & N. A. BRITTO, JJ. DATE : 1ST DECEMBER, 2008. P.C.:-

¶11

The Petitioner challenges the selection of Respondent No.3 to the

¶12

post of Excise Inspector. The Petitioner and Respondent No.3 were competing

¶13

from the category of Freedom Fighters dependants. A written test was conducted wherein marks allotted were 80. The remaining 20 marks are bifurcated in the following manner:-

¶14

¶15

15 marks for oral test,

¶16

3 marks for having qualification of Post Graduate, and

¶17

2 marks for having qualification of Ph.D.

¶18

Admittedly, the Petitioner does not possess the qualification of Post Graduate Degree. However, the Petitioner has undergone some diploma after the graduation. So also it is undisputed that Respondent No.3 does not possess the said qualification. In the process of selection neither the Petitioner nor Respondent No.3 came to be awarded any mark on account of post graduate qualification.

¶19

In the first place, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the diploma possessed by the Petitioner be treated as a post graduate qualification for awarding 3 marks.

¶20

An affidavit-in-reply has been filed by the Commissioner of Excise stating therein that only candidates who had obtained a post graduate degree are alone entitle for 3 marks which are earmarked for post graduate qualification.

¶21

In this view of the matter, no fault can be found with the decision taken by the Respondents in not awarding 3 marks to the Petitioner.

¶22

¶23

Secondly, it was contended that the Petitioner has been

¶24

awarded only 3 marks in the oral interview whereas Respondent No.3 has been awarded 14 marks. It will be difficult to have any judicial review of the oral interview. The marks allotted for the oral interview are only 15 out of 100 and hence no case is made out for interference.

¶25

Hence, Writ Petition is dismissed.

¶26

A. P. DESHPANDE, J.

¶27

N. A. BRITTO, J.

¶28

Shri. Vikramaditya Mukund Gaonkar v. State of Goa through Chief Secretary and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Vikramaditya Mukund Gaonkar v. State of Goa through Chief Secretary and 2 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

Shri Vithoba Desai, Ponda Goa. Vs the Registrar of Co-Operative Societies and 9 Ors.

Shri Chandrakant v. Tandel and 2 Ors., Vs Principal, Goa College of Engineering and Anr.

Shri Mahabaleshwar Ganba Sawant, Ponda Goa. Vs the Prinicipal, Goa Engineering College and Anr.

Shri Yeshwant Gangadhar Jog and 3 Ors., Vs State of Goa and 7 Ors.

Shri. Dr. Victor De Souza Vs State of Goa through Chief Secretary and 4 Ors.

M/S Francon'S Marine Academy through Proprietor Franco Berne Martins Vs Directorate General of Shipping through Director and 3 Ors.