Dismissed

Viraj S/O Vinod Deshmukh v. President, District Selection Comittee and Collector, Wardha and Anr.

Bombay HC27 Jan 2012WP/5139/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Nagpur dismissed a writ petition challenging the non-recruitment of the petitioner for lack of a certificate of agricultural experience as per the advertisement requirements. The Court held that without produced material showing compliance, no interference is called for.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for setting aside the selection process dismissed as the petitioner failed to produce required experience certificate. No interference called for.

Viraj S/O Vinod Deshmukh Vs President, District Selection… — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

271wp5139.11.odt 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.5139 of 2011

¶3

(Viraj Vinod Deshmukh .vs. President, District Selection Committee and Collector, Wardha and anr.)

¶4

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.

¶5

Coram : P. B. Majmudar and

¶6

A. P. Bhangale, JJ.

¶7

Date : 27/01/2012.

¶8

Heard Mrs.V.P.Thakre, Adv. for the petitioner, Mr.Anoop Parihar, A.G.P. for respondent no.1 and Mr.P.D.Meghe, Adv. for respondent no.2.

¶9

By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the selection process for the recruitment to the post of Agriculture Officer. As per the advertisement, which is at Annexure-P-1 (relevant page no.13-B), the candidate is required to be a holder of B.Sc. degree in Agriculture with atleast three years' experience in the work related with agriculture or he should be a post graduate. The petitioner applied in the category of B.Sc. Agriculture. Therefore, he was required to have experience of three years in the agricultural activity. Along with the petition, the petitioner has not produced any certificate

¶10

271wp5139.11.odt 2

¶11

showing that he possesses any such experience.

¶12

It is pointed out by the learned Counsel for the respondents that, as per clause 7.2.10 in the advertisement, the petitioner was required to annexe experience certificate which is duly authenticated by the concerned organization where the candidate has obtained experience. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has not produced any such certificate and hence, as per the advertisement, since he has not produced certificate of experience, he was found not eligible for such appointment. Appropriate reply has also been filed in this behalf.

¶13

Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has experience of agricultural activity in his own field. However, in our view, since the petitioner has not produced appropriate material at the time of making application nor any document showing experience is filed, no fault can be found in this behalf and hence, no interference by this Court is called for. Resultantly, the petition is dismissed.

¶14

J UDGE J UDGE

¶15

jaiswal

Viraj S/O Vinod Deshmukh v. President, District Selection Comittee and Collector, Wardha and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Viraj S/O Vinod Deshmukh v. President, District Selection Comittee and Collector, Wardha and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Akhil Bhartiya Adiwasi Halba Vikas Parishad, through Its Secretary and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, School Education and Sports Department and Another

Mrs. Rutuja W/O Rahul Pawar Thr. Poa Am Diwate Vs Union of India Thr. Its Secty. and Anr.

Waman S/O Rambhau Wankar Vs Education Officer,Chandrapur and Others

Sangita D/O Dnyaneshwar Wankar and 2 Others Vs State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Department of Social Justice and 3 Others

Yunus Parwez S/O Mohammad Iqbal Vs Zp, Akola Thr. Its C.E.O. and 2 Ors.

Deepak S/O Ramakant Kale and Ors. Vs Narendrakumar S/O Chhotelal Rewade and 4 Ors.