Writ petition rejected for being misconceived and misdirected as mandamus cannot compel appointment of candidates.
None
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.
1 WP7981/11
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.7981 OF 2011
Mahesh R. Walunjkar ...Petitioner
v/s
Union of India and others ...Respondents
Mr Saikumar Rammurthy for Petitioner.
None for Respondents.
CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH AND ANOOP V. MOHTA JJ.
DATE : 17TH DECEMBER 2011.
2 WP7981/11
P.C.:-
1]The petition was filed without joining
candidates who have been appointed as Arts Teachers.
The learned counsel appearing for petitioner submits
that he does not want to challenge the appointment
of those candidates who have been appointed. If
that is so, the petition filed seeking appointment
could not be maintainable because there cannot be
mandamus for appointment. Looking from any point of
view, the petition of the petitioner is entirely
misconceived and misdirected. Petition is rejected.
Parties to act on the copy of this order
duly authenticated by the Sheristedar / Private
Secretary of this Court.
Certified copy expedited.
( JUSTICE D.K. DESHMUKH )
( JUSTICE ANOOP V. MOHTA )
Mahesh R. Walunjkar
Union of India
D.K. DESHMUKH
ANOOP V. MOHTA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court