Dismissed

Ritesh S/O Ramdaspant Mandale v. Nagar Parishad, Achalpur, Thr Chairman, Standing Committee (President) Achalpur

Bombay HC3 Sept 2012WP/5803/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the selection and appointment of a Class IV post holder on the ground of excess age. The Court held that as the appointee belongs to the Other Backard Class, he was eligible under Government Resolution dated 17.8.2004 up to 38 years. The writ petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.

Ritesh S/O Ramdaspant Mandale Vs Nagar… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

wp5803-11.order

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

¶4

Writ Petition No. 5803 of 2011

¶5

Ritesh Ramdas Mandale

¶6

-vs-

¶7

Nagar Parishad, Achalpur and others.

¶8

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

¶9

Court's or Judge's Orders.

¶10

Mr. S.D. Sirpurkar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. A.B. Patil, learned counsel for respondent no.1. Mr. A.S. Kilor, learned counsel for respondent no. 3. Mr. Dharmadhikari, AGP for the respondent no.2.

¶11

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, & SUNIL P. DESHMUKH , JJ.

¶12

DATE : 3 rd September, 2012.

¶13

By this petition, the petitioner challenges the selection and appointment of the respondent no. 3 on a post in Class IV category on the ground that the respondent no. 3 was over age at the time of his selection and appointment.

¶14

It is the case of the petitioner that the age limit for the persons belonging to the open category was 33 years whereas the age limit for the reserved category candidates was 38 years. It is submitted that the respondent no. 3 was appointed on an open post and therefore the respondent no. 3 was over age, being 35 years of age at the time of his selection and appointment.

¶15

The respondents have relied on the Government Resolution dated 17.8.2004 which prescribes the age limit for the open category candidates and the reserved category candidates. The said Government Resolution stipulates that the candidates below the age of 33 years are eligible for appointment in Class IV posts whereas for the reserved category candidates the age

wp5803-11.order

limit is 38 years.

Though the respondent no. 3 was selected and appointed on an open category post, the respondent no. 3 belongs to the Other Backward Class and hence in terms of the Government Resolution dated 17.8.2004 was eligible to be appointed on the Class-IV post till he attains the age of 38 years. Admittedly, the respondent no. 3 belongs to the Other Backward Class and was 35 years of age at the time of his selection and appointment. Hence, the order of selection and appointment of the respondent no. 3 cannot be interfered with, in exercise of the writ jurisdiction.

¶20

In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶21

JUDGE JUDGE

¶22

Hirekhan

Ritesh S/O Ramdaspant Mandale v. Nagar Parishad, Achalpur, Thr Chairman, Standing Committee (President) Achalpur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ritesh S/O Ramdaspant Mandale v. Nagar Parishad, Achalpur, Thr Chairman, Standing Committee (President) Achalpur

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

Himanshu S/O Manharbhai Patel Vs M/S S.M.World, a Partnership Firm, Thr. Its Partner Vishal S/O Jawaharlal Dubey and 3 Others

Valmik S/O Nagoji Khobragade Vs State of Maharashtra, Law and Judiciary Department and 2 Other

Shrikant Madhukar Deshpande and Ors. Vs State of Mah. Thr. Its Secty., and Ors.

Abhay Shaligram Gajbhiye Vs State of Mah. Thr. Secy., Public Health Deptt. , Mantralaya, Mumbai

Sushil S/O Wasudeo Kale and 3 Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Secty., and 2 Ors.

Sau. Niranjana Suresh Nawale, through P.O.A. Suresh Gambhirrao Nawale Vs Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Buldhana and Anohter