Petitioner challenged non-appointment from a 2008 wait list. Court held list validity expired before fresh advertisements, dismissing the writ petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
wp1678.10
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 1678 OF 2010
Sandeep s/o Dattarao Lekule
.. PETITIONER
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra & others
.. RESPONDENTS
Mr. H.V. Patil, advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. K.G. Patil, AGP for the State.
Mr. S.R. Bagal, advocate for respondent nos. 2 & 3.
=====
CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & R.M. BORDE, JJ. DATE : 2nd DECEMBER, 2010
PER COURT : ( PER R. M. BORDE, J. )
amongst NT-C category. It is the contention of the petitioner that he has
applied for the post of Shiksha Sewak in pursuance to the advertisement
issued in the year 2008 and after undergoing the process of selection, he
was selected and was kept on the wait list. The petitioner’s name is listed at
sr. no. 5 in the wait list. According to the petitioner, there ought to have
been three vacancies earmarked for NT-C category. However, respondents
wp1678.10
2
filled in only two vacancies. Petitioner’s claim ought to have been considered for appointment but the same has not been considered. It is
also further contended that one Goware who has been transferred from other district is accommodated as against the vacancy prescribed for NT-C
category. It is further cotended by the petitioner that posting given to Mr. Gaware on transfer, cannot be considered as appointment as against the
post reserved for NT-C category. Petitioner as such seeks direction to the respondents for issuance of an order of appointment in pursuance to his
selection in the process undertaken by the respondents for making appointment to the post of Shikshan Sewak in the year 2008.
oppose the petition. It is admitted that name of the petitioner appears at sr. no. 5 in the wait list prepared by the respondents. It is contended that the
selection list was prepared in May 2008 and was valid for a period of one
year i.e .until May 2009. Candidate at sr. no. 4 who was above the petitioner
was also not offered the post as there was no vacancy. The claim of Mr.
Gaware, who was accommodated as per the policy of inter district transfer
is accommodated against the vacant post prescribed for NT-C category.
Transfer of Mr. Gaware is as per the policy prescribed by the State
wp1678.10
3
Government in respect of offering placement to husband and wife at one
station as far as possible. It is further contended by the respondents that validity period of the wait list is already exhausted and the respondent – Zilla Parishad has also advertised posts and called applications from eligible candidates for appointment of Shikshan Sewaks. All the vacancies which were available on the date of advertisement have already been declared and advertised. In these circumstances, claim put forth by the petitioner cannot be considered.
been exhausted and that fresh advertisement has been issued by the respondent, the claim raised by the petitioner in this writ petition cannot be
considered in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. Petition is devoid of substance hence stands dismissed.
( R. M. BORDE ) ( B. R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE
dyb/office/
wp1678.10
4
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner's claim for appointment from the wait list is maintainable given the exhaustion of the validity period of the list?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sandeep s/o Dattarao Lekule
The State of Maharashtra
B.R. Gavai
R.M. Borge
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
