Dismissed

Shri. Jitendra Laxman Solanki v. Administrator, Union Territory of Daman and Diu and Ors.

Bombay HC14 Mar 2012WP/1373/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the fresh advertisement for Assistant Lecturer posts, contending it was issued malafide after he attended an interview based on an earlier ad. The court held no legal right to appointment accrued and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of order to withdraw the advertisement for Assistant Lecturer posts.

Shri. Jitendra Laxman Solanki Vs Administrator… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

WP-1373-12

¶2

Chandka

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 1373 OF 2012

¶6

Jitendra Laxman Solanki ..Petitioner

¶7

versus

¶8

Administrator, Union Territory of Daman & Diu & Ors. ..Respondents

¶9

Mr. Ganesh Gole for Petitioner. None for Respondents.

¶10

CORAM : D. D. SINHA AND SMT. V. K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ.

¶11

14 March 2012

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶14

The petitioner in the present petition is seeking direction to the respondents to withdraw advertisement dated 28.12.2011 published in newspaper 'Sandesh'. The respondent no.3 on the earlier occasion issued the advertisement for filling up the vacancy meant for various reserved categories (petitioner is concerned with the Scheduled Caste category) for

1/3

WP-1373-12

Chandka

the post of Assistant Lecturer in Engineering in Technical Training Institute at Daman & Diu. It is contended that pursuant to the said advertisement the petitioner appeared for written examination and was also called for personal interview on 24.6.2010. However, the interviews were not held on that day by the Authorities.

¶19

The petitioner has submitted that the respondent no. 3 issued the impugned advertisement dated 28.12.2011 for filling up the said vacancy meant for Scheduled Caste category and therefore the petitioner issued legal notice in this regard. Deputy Secretary Education vide communication dated 31.1.2012 informed the petitioner the reasons for issuing the fresh advertisement. Being aggrieved by the action of the respondents of issuing the impugned advertisement, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking direction to withdraw the same.

¶20

In view of the above referred facts and circumstances, it is clear that the petitioner though was called for interview after he appeared for the written test, that by itself does not create any legal right in the petitioner to get the order of appointment. It is well settled that the right to the appointment will accrue from the date of selection and after issuance of order of appointment. In the instant case the petitioner has not made any

2/3

WP-1373-12

Chandka

averments in the petition that the issuance of subsequent advertisement is malafide or for the purpose of showing disfavour to him in order to show favour to other candidate. In absence of any malafides and in view of communication dated 31.1.2012 issued by the Deputy Secretary (Education) to the petitioner, the action of the respondent no. 3 to issue fresh advertisement, in our view, is sustainable in law. Apart from this, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has applied for the post pursuant to impugned advertisement dated 28.12.2011. Even on this count it is difficult to show

¶25

any indulgence in the present writ petition, the same is dismissed.

¶26

(SMT. V. K. TAHILRAMANI, J.)

¶27

3/3

Shri. Jitendra Laxman Solanki v. Administrator, Union Territory of Daman and Diu and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Jitendra Laxman Solanki v. Administrator, Union Territory of Daman and Diu and Ors.

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

Hon'Ble Mla Babanravji Sinde, through Shri. Kishore D. Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hon'Ble Mla Babanravji Sinde, through Shri. Kishore D. Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Premkumar Shankaran Naik Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors.

Ramakant v. Pai Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Naseem Banu and Ors. Vs the Dy. Chief Officer - Mumbai Building Repairs and Reconstruction Board and Ors.

Chandrakant S Rajole Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.