Dismissed

Sachin Ramchandra Chavan v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC8 Jun 2009WP/6540/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged non-appointment as Technical Agricultural Officer, claiming the selection list was irregular due to revaluation of a candidate from a different post. The court held that with one vacancy and two candidates scoring higher, the selection based on merit was valid. Petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Dismissed the writ petition seeking appointment of petitioner for the post.

Sachin Ramchandra Chavan Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.6540 OF 2008

¶5

Shri Sachin Ramchandra Chavan

¶6

.. Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶9

.. Respondents

¶10

Mr.Priyal G. Sarda for the petitioner

¶11

Ms.M.P.Thakur, A.G.P. for respondent nos.1 to 4

¶12

CORAM: J.N. PATEL & Smt.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ.

¶13

DATE: JUNE 8, 2009

¶14

P.C.

¶15

This petition is filed invoking the writ Jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for seeking appointment for the post of Technical Agricultural Officer, Zilla Parishad, Solapur. The petitioner has applied for the post of Technical Agricultural Officer, Zilla Parishad, Solapur pursuant to the advertisement dated 5.5.08. The petitioner cleared written examination and he was declared eligible candidate as he has secured the marks required for the qualification to enter into next round. So he was called to produce the necessary original documents in July 2008. However, the petitioner finally was not appointed though he was selected for the said post. Hence, he filed this petition.

¶16

¶17

The respondents have opposed the petition by filing short affidavit in reply. Therein, it is pointed out that after declaration of the select list of the candidates for the post of Agricultural Officer, one candidate Mr.V.V.Vedpathak who has applied for the post of Junior Draftsman has made application for revaluation of the mark sheet. Pursuant to the said application, the answer sheet which was received from MKCL was manually assessed and authority noticed the mistake in the valuation of the marks by MKCL.

¶18

It is further submitted that due to this error, the selection process of the candidates went totally wrong and after revaluation as the error was conducted, it was rectified by issuing new selection list in which the other two candidates have secured more marks than the petitioner.

¶19

It is further explained in the affidavit that the petitioner has secured 3^rd place in the merit list and since there was only one vacancy, the petitioner was not selected and was not appointed for the said post. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the person who has applied for the revaluation was not a candidate who had applied for the said post. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the revaluation was done arbitrarily and hence, the petitioner claims recalling of the new select list and his appointment to the said post.

¶20

¶21

Perused documents before us. We find that if two candidates have obtained more marks than the petitioner and only one post was vacant then we do not find any fault in the selection and appointment process. As the petitioner stood 3^rd in the merit list, he cannot claim any right in the appointment and the selection should go as per the merit. Hence, we do not find any merit in the petition. The petition stands dismissed.

¶22

(J.N. Patel, J.)

¶23

(Smt. Mridula Bhatkar, J.)

Sachin Ramchandra Chavan v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachin Ramchandra Chavan v. State of Maharashtra and 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

Kiran Sampatrao Patil and Ors. Vs Central Council of India Medicines and Ors.

The Indian Express Ltd. and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Telco (Kapoor) Co-Op. Hsg.Society Vs Pimpri Chinchwad New Town Development Authority and Ors.

Bhairavnath Baburao Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Vs Bharat Baburao Dhavan and Ors.

Arjunrao Mahadaba Ambure (Deceased) through 1 Shri Subhadra Arhunrao Ambure and Ors. Vs the Municipal Coporation of City of Solapur Throug Commissioner and Ors.

Ramchandra Janardhan Deshmukh and Ors. Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer and Ors.