Dismissed

Sandeep Suhas Samant v. the Commissioner, Thane Municipal Corporation and Anr.

Bombay HC7 Aug 2009WP/651/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition and a connected civil application regarding the petitioner's claim for preferential appointment as Ward Officer under a Government Resolution. The respondents conceded that the resolution would be considered in the new selection process, leading to dismissal of both applications.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition and the civil application were disposed of as both parties agreed that the Government Resolution would be considered in the subsequent selection process.

Sandeep Suhas Samant Vs the Commissioner, Thane… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

AJN

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.651 OF 2009 ALONG WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1946 OF 2009

Sandeep Suhas Samant

... Petitioner

Vs.

The Commissioner, Thane Municipal Corporation & Anr. ... Respondents

¶10

Mr. S.A. Sawant for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. A.R. Pitale for respondent 1.

¶12

Ms. M.P. Thakur, A.G.P. for respondent 2.

¶13

CORAM : SMT. RANJANA DESAI & A.A. SAYED, JJ.

¶14

DATED : 7TH AUGUST, 2009.

¶15

P.C.:-

¶16

Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent of the parties taken up for hearing.

¶17

The instant petition is filed by the petitioner, inter

¶18

alia, praying that the respondents be directed to give the

¶19

AJN

¶20

¶21

petitioner benefit of Government Resolution dated 9/10/1989 and give him preference for the appointment to the post of the Ward Officer as per the advertisement dated 23/3/2008.

¶22

3. On 9/4/2009, the following order was passed by this court.

¶23

“Heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties. Perused the record.

¶24

2. There were 768 applications received in pursuance to the advertisement issued. After scrutiny, 651 candidates were called for written examination. The petitioner was one of them. Out of these 651 candidates, 80 candidates were called for interview for 6 posts available. Cut-off marks were 74 marks. The petitioner secured 66 marks and as such he was not called for interview.

¶25

3. In this view of the matter, we withdraw the order of interim injunction granted by this Court earlier. However, it is made clear that, if any, selection is made the same shall remain subject to final decision in the writ petition.

¶26

4. List this writ petition on 9^th June, 2009 for final hearing.”

¶27

AJN

¶28

¶29

The petition is thus pending for final hearing. The present civil application is taken out by the petitioner praying that respondent 1 be directed to select the petitioner, who is well qualified for the post of the Ward Officer in view of the Government Resolution dated 9/10/1989 issued by the Urban Development Department, State of Maharashtra and order dated 9/4/2009 quoted hereinabove, may be continued thereby holding that the selection, if any, will be made in pursuance of the advertisement dated 24/7/2009, but it shall be subject to the final decision of the present writ petition.

¶30

We have heard Mr. Sawant, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Pitale, learned counsel appearing for respondent 1 and Ms. Thakur, learned A.G.P. appearing for the State.

¶31

Clause (6) of Government Resolution dated 9/10/1989 reads as under :

¶32

AJN

¶33

¶34

“6. Those sweepers (workers) working in Class IV category and who have acquired required qualification then those sweepers be considered for the promotional post of Class III or other technical post. The preference be given to those Class IV sweepers if they acquire required qualification.”

¶35

Learned counsel for respondent 1 states that the earlier selection process is cancelled and new selection process is on. He states that the respondents shall consider the Government Resolution dated 9/10/1989 during selection procedure and if applicable, benefit thereof will be given to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the parties agree that in view of this statement, the petition does not survive and is disposed of as such.

¶36

In view of the disposal of the writ petition, the civil application does not survive and is disposed of as such.

¶37

[SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.]

¶38

[A.A. SAYED, J.]

Sandeep Suhas Samant v. the Commissioner, Thane Municipal Corporation and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Suhas Samant v. the Commissioner, Thane Municipal Corporation and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vikrant Bhimsen Chavan Vs the Municipal Commissioner- Thane Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Nilappa Mangleshwar Umbarje (Minor)through Father - Mangleshwar Umbarje Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Dr. Aspi B. Surveyor and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shankar Balu Thakur and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Dwarkanath Arjun Kande Vs Tahsildar- at Post and Tal. Niphad and Ors.