A writ petition challenging the non-consideration of the petitioner's claim for appointment as Subject Expert in 2006 was dismissed as devoid of substance and filed after a lapse of more than six years.
The writ petition stands dismissed.
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}
W.P.No.2573/2012
drp
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.2573 OF 2012
Surekha Babruwan Natave
PETITIONER
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra & others
RESPONDENTS
.......
Mr. T.M.Venjane, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. S.G.Nandedkar, AGP for respondent State
Mr. V.D.Hon, Advocate for respondent No.2
.......
[CORAM : R. M. BORDE AND U. D. SALVI, J.J.]
DATE : 18th DECEMBER 2012
PER COURT:
1.The grievance of the petitioner is in
respect of non consideration of his claim for making
appointment to the post of Subject Expert. It is
stated that an advertisement was issued calling
applications for filing up the post of Subject Expert
in 2006. It was disclosed in the advertisement that
the duration of the appointment would be for a period
of one year. However, it appears that the scheme was
continued from time to time. The petitioner has
tendered a writ petition on earlier occasion, which
came to be dismissed by this Court. The Review
{2} W.P.No.2573/2012
Application tendered by the petitioner was also
dismissed considering the statement made by respondent
that the scheme is likely to come to an end in
December 2009. The petitioner contends that the scheme
is still continued and it would come to an end only in
the year 2014-15. The grievance made by the petitioner
in the petition is in respect of rejection of his
claim for making appointment to the post of Subject
Expert in 2006. After lapse of more than 6 years the
grievance made by the petitioner is not liable to be
considered. Apart from this, the appointment to the
post is under a scheme sponsored by the Central
Government which itself is for a prescribed duration.
It cannot be stated that there is any right to the
post available to the petitioner and for enforcement
of such right a writ can be issued. Writ petition,
which is devoid of any substance, stands dismissed.
[U.D.SALVI, J.] [R.M.BORDE, J.]
drp/A12/wp2573-12
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition regarding the non-consideration of the petitioner's equal preference policy in 2006 is maintainable after a lapse of more than six years.
Whether the petitioner has any enforceable right to the appointment post under a Central Government scheme of prescribed duration.
Surekha Babruwan Natave
The State of Maharashtra
R. M. Borge
U. D. Salvi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court