Writ petition challenging differential recruitment norms for Project Affected Persons (PAP) versus general category candidates. Court held differential treatment is permissible for distinct classes.
Writ petition dismissed; no order as to costs.
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.
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s Orders.
COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
WP/2437/2010 NILESH V/S STATE
Shri M.B.Bharaswadkar, Advocate for petitioner Shri S.K.Tambe, AGP for respondents 1 and 2.
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS directions and Registrar’s Orders.
(2) WP/2437/2010
(R.M.BORDE, J.) (B.R.GAVAI, J.) Dt.10.12.2010 akl
1 issue framed by the court
Whether differential treatment between general category and Project Affected Persons (PAP) candidates in recruitment violates equality before law.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Nilesh Tambe
State
R.M. Borde
B.R. Gavai
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
