Dismissed

Vd.Manoj Ramkrishna Runghe v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC16 Dec 2009WP/2991/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging educational institution selection for a lecturer post, the Court held that facts are not permissible for writ jurisdiction. It directed the University to pass final orders on the appointment proposal considering allegations within six weeks, leaving meritorious decisions to the University.

What did the court decide?

Directed the University to pass final orders on the selection proposal within six weeks.

Vd.Manoj Ramkrishna Runghe Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

 WRIT PETITION NO. 2991 OF 2009

¶4

Vd. Manoj Ramkrishna Runghe ... Petitioner.

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra

¶7

& Others. ... Respondents.

¶8

Shri. S.T. Shelke,Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri. V.D. Rakh, Assistant Government Pleader,
for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶9

Shri. K.D. Bade Patil, Advocate for respondent
No.4.

¶10

Shri. V.S. Bedre, Advocate for respondent No.5.
Shri. V.M. Kagne, Advocate for respondent No.7.
Shri. V.D. Hon, Advocate for respondent No.12.

¶11

 CORAM: NARESH H PATIL &
 K.U. CHANDIWAL,JJ.

¶12

 DATE: 16th DECEMBER 2009

¶13

PER COURT :

¶14

1)Heard.

¶15

2)Shri. Gangadhar Shastri Gune Ayurved

¶16

Mahavidyalaya, Ahmednagar, which is affiliated to

¶17

the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences,

¶18

Nashik, advertised 14 posts amongst which one

¶19

¶20

post was of Lecturer in the subject of "Samhita

¶21

Siddhant". A Selection Committee was constituted

¶22

as per rules. There is no dispute that, the
interviews were held for this post. The
petitioner participated in the selection process
by appearing before the Selection Committee along
with respondent No.12.

¶23

3)The contention of the petitioner is that

¶24

the petitioner is more meritorious than
respondent No.12 and there are certain
deficiencies in the candidature of respondent No.
12 on account of age, qualification and that the
respondent No.12 was considered as a candidate
belonging to reserved category.

¶25

4)The University, the management and

¶26

respondent No.12 have filed affidavits-in-reply.
The respondent No.12 has refuted the allegations

¶27

made by the petitioner. The counsel for the
respondent No.12 states that the respondent No.12

¶28

was selected as a candidate from open category.

¶29

¶30

5) After hearing the learned counsel for the contesting parties for some time and perusing the documents and Government Resolutions we find that the issues raised by the petitioner relate to questions of facts which is not permissible in exercise of writ jurisdiction of this Court. There is another reason to say so for us as the proposal for approval of the selection and appointment of respondent No.12 was already forwarded by the management to the University which is pending consideration of the University. It is informed to us that as the issue is sub judice before this Court the University has not passed final orders on the proposal.

¶31

6)Without entering into the merits of the
claim made by the contesting parties and without
prejudice to the rights of the parties we observe
that the University shall take a final decision
on the proposal forwarded by the management in
respect of selection of respondent No.12 taking

¶32

¶33

into consideration the allegations made in the
petition by the petitioner, the stand adopted by
the management, the respondent No.12 and the law.
We direct the University to pass appropriate
final orders in this regard on the proposal
within a period of six weeks from today. The
decision shall be communicated to the petitioner,
the respondent No.12 and the management
accordingly.

¶34

7)We clarify that in case the petitioner
is aggrieved with the decision of the University,
the petitioner may resort to appropriate remedies
as permissible in law to him. We express no

¶35

opinion on the merits of the case.

¶36

8)The writ petition is disposed of.

¶37

(K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.)

¶38

rsl/ wp.2991.09

Vd.Manoj Ramkrishna Runghe v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vd.Manoj Ramkrishna Runghe v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

All India Lalbegi Bhangi Samaj Mahila Safai Kamgar Development Society and Anr. Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Gangaramsinha Hanumansinha Thakur Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Jayant Shivajirao Jagdale Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Dr Bhaurao Bapujitanpure Sah.Sakhar Sakhar Ltd. through Its Secretary Shivaji Haribhaul Bangal Vs the Union of India through Its Secretary Ministry of Consumer Affairs New Delhi

Jalgaon Jilha Urban Co-Op Banks and Anr. Vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation

Sandeep Panditrao Rautwad and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.