The appellant sought appointment as an Assistant Librarian. The Court held that the Karnataka Grievance Committee constituted under the Maharashtra Universities Act is the alternate efficacious remedy. The petition was not entertained.
The writ petition was disposed of without entertaining it on merits; the matter is left open.
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.
KPP -1- WP NO. 5510 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 5510 OF 2011
Shivaji Sambhaji Satker
....Petitioner
vs.
State of Maharashtra and others
..Respondents
Mr. B.A. Lawate for the petitioner. Mr. C.R. Sonawane, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR & N.M. JAMDAR, JJ.
DATE: FEBRUARY 23, 2012
P.C.
The petitioner has filed this petition with a prayer to appoint him as
an Assistant Librarian in the respondent college as per the Government Resolution dated 23rd August, 1996. The petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition bearing No. 2465 of 1999 seeking the same prayer while challenging the appointment of some other Assistant Librarian working in the College. While disposing of the writ petition vide order dated 18th July, 2000, this Court observed - “ On perusal of the relevant record, we are satisfied that the petitioner is not qualified for the post of Asstt. Librarian as he does not possess necessary experience as per Govt. Resolution dated 23rd August, 1996.” The advocate for the petitioner contends that after the order dated 18th July, 2000, he has
KPP -2- WP NO. 5510 of 2011
acquired necessary qualification to be appointed as an Assistant Librarian. However, this contention of the petitioner can be gone into by the Grievance Committee appointed under the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 (“the Act”). It will be open for the petitioner to approach the Grievance Committee for redressal of his grievance which is made in this petition. Since there is an alternate efficacious remedy available to the petitioner, there is no need to entertain the present petition.
(N.M. JAMDAR, J.)
(A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petition for appointment as Assistant Librarian should be entertained when an efficacious alternate remedy exists.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shivaji Sambhaji Satker
State of Maharashtra
others
A.M. Khanwilkar
N.M. Jamdar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
