Dismissed

Suresh Janraoji Wankhede v. Maha. Animal and Fishery Sci. Uni. Thru. Its Registrar and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC14 Oct 2008WP/773/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging rejection from a Junior Engineer post, the High Court held separate weightage for a degree and diploma in the same discipline illegal and allowed respondent appointments without interference via a first-class degree marks.

What did the court decide?

The petition was rejected; no interference in the appointments made by the university was called for.

Suresh Janraoji Wankhede Vs Maha. Animal and Fishery… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2008)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Writ Petition No.773/2008 Suresh s/o Janraoji Wankhede Vs. Mah. Animal & Fishery Science University Nagpur and others.

¶3

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders.

¶4

Mr. A.S. Mardikar, Adv. for the Petitioner. Mrs. U.A. Patil, Adv. for respondent no.1. Mr. A.S. Kilor, Adv. for respondent no.2.

¶5

Coram : B.H. Marlapalle and A.H. Joshi, JJ. Dated : 14^th October, 2008.

¶6

Heard Mr. Mardikar, learned counsel for the

¶7

petitioner.

¶8

The grievance raised in this petition is regarding nonselection of the petitioner to the post of Junior Engineer under the respondent no.1-University. The petitioner contends that he being more meritorious than respondent nos.2 and 3, he ought to have been selected and appointed to the post of Junior Engineer. He further contends that he possesses a diploma in Civil Engineering as well as a degree in the same discipline and, therefore, as per him, he ought to have been given separate weightage to the degree qualification as well as diploma qualification. If he had been given three marks as allocated for the diploma qualification, he ought to have scored more marks than respondent no.2 and thus got selected.

¶9

Respondent no.1 has filed reply and also placed on

¶10

¶11

record the copies of advertisement as well as the selection process record.

¶12

We have noted that the petitioner has been given marks for the degree in Engineering and he has also given marks as he is first-class degree holder. He has not been given three marks for his diploma qualification and we do not find any illegality in the same. Admittedly, the degree and diploma qualifications possessed by the petitioner are from the same discipline and if he has been given marks for the degree qualification, we do not see any reason as to why he should be given separate weightage for diploma qualification unless such a qualification is from a different faculty like electrical or mechanical etc. Having gone through the assessment sheet, we are satisfied that respondent no.1 has considered the merit in the selection process and respondent nos.2 and 3 who have secured more marks than the petitioner have been appointed. No interference is, therefore, called for in the appointments made by respondent no.1-University. The petition is rejected.

¶13

JUDGE

¶14

JUDGE

¶15

Ambulkar.

Suresh Janraoji Wankhede v. Maha. Animal and Fishery Sci. Uni. Thru. Its Registrar and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Janraoji Wankhede v. Maha. Animal and Fishery Sci. Uni. Thru. Its Registrar 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

Dr. Smt. Sarita W/O Viral Kamdar Vs the Nagpur Municipal Corporation, Nagpur and Another

Ku. Nanda Madhukarrao Mandale Vs the Education Officer Zp, Amravati and 2 Otrs

Sana Talat Naseem Khan Vs Mah. State Board of Sec. and H.S. Edn. Thru. Secty. and Anor.

Dr. Prashant Hemraj Parate Vs Directorate of Medical Education and Research Thru. Its. Director and 5 Ors.

Manrajsingh S/O Hardevsingh Sandhu Vs the Mah.State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education,Thr Its Divisional Secretary

Ashish Ramesh Belorkar Vs the State of Maha. Thru. Chief Secty. and 2 Ors.