Petitioner challenged an order rejecting his appointment as Gramsevak in the open category, claiming he should have been considered a part-time employee. The court dismissed the petition due to lack of merit.
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.
wp4494.12
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.4494 OF 2012
Gajendra Digambar Lokhande,
R/o-Paradh (Bk),
Tq-Bhokardan, Dist-Jalna.
...PETITIONER.
VERSUS
1) The State of Maharashtra, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai,2) The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Jalna. ...RESPONDENTS. ...
Shri.U.V. Jawalikar Advocate for Petitioner.
Shri.D.R. Kale, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1.
Shri.B.N. Gadegaonkar Advocate for Respondent
No.2.
...
CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND
S.B. DESHMUKH, JJ.
DATE : 1ST AUGUST, 2012.
wp4494.12
2
PER COURT :
1.Heard learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties.
2.The Petitioner seeks appointment on the
post of Gramsevak, being a candidate from the
category of part-time employee. The Petitioner
applied for the said post by filing application, the copy of which is at Exhibit B. In the said application, against Column No.4, the Petitioner has written as " KHULA " (Open).
3.The Respondent No.2 has filed affidavit
in reply. The learned counsel appearing for
Respondent No.2 submits that as the Petitioner has
applied as a candidate from open category, the
Petitioner, now, cannot be permitted to claim that
his application be considered as a candidate from
part-time employee category.
wp4494.12
3
4.The learned counsel for the Petitioner
submits that the Respondents consciously allowed
the Petitioner to appear in the examination
inspite of the fact that the Petitioner has
crossed the upper age limit, which itself shows
that Petitioner's application was considered as a
candidate from part-time employee category.
5.Considering the reply filed and the
explanation tendered, we are not inclined to
accept the plea of the Petitioner. There is no
merit in the Petition. The Writ Petition is
dismissed.
[S.B. DESHMUKH, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.]
asb/AUG12
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a petitioner who applied as an open category candidate can seek appointment as a part-time employee after the adverse order.
Whether the respondent's allowance of the petitioner to appear in an examination despite the petitioner crossing the age limit validates the open category application as a part-time category applicati
Gajendra Digambar Lokhande
The State of Maharashtra, Urban Development Department
The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Jalna
NARESH H. PATIL
S.B. DESHMUKH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court