Dismissed

Varsha D/O Kawduji Kale v. the Secretary, Ministry of Tribe Development and Another

Bombay HC5 Sept 2012WP/6112/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay Nagpur Bench disposed of a writ petition seeking appointment as a shikshan sevak. The court dismissed the petition, holding the petitioner had no right to claim appointment based on an old waiting list, the post was not vacant, and the petition suffered from laches.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition failed and was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Varsha D/O Kawduji Kale Vs the Secretary… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

wp6112.11-Orde r

¶2

1/4

¶3

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

¶4

WRIT PETN. NO.6112/2011

¶5

Varsha D/o Kawduji Kale Vs.

¶6

The Secretary, Ministry of Tribe Development and another

¶7

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

¶8

Court's or Judge's Orders.

¶9

Shri Indrajeet Meshram, counsel for the petitioner. Ms Kalyani R. Deshpande, AGP for the respondents.

¶10

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

¶11

DATE : 05.09.2012.

¶12

By this petition, the petitioner seeks a writ or

¶13

direction to the respondents to issue appointment order appointing him as shikshan sevak in the subject of Botany in the junior college as the post is lying vacant.

¶14

According to the petitioner, an advertisement was issued by the respondents on 26/09/2008 calling applications for appointment on the post of shikshan sevak in the junior college. The petitioner had applied in pursuance of the same. The petitioner’s name was placed at Sr.No.2 in the waiting list. According to the petitioner, though the person selected for appointment on the post of shikshan sevak in the subject of Botany had not joined and

¶15

the post was lying vacant, the petitioner was not

¶16

wp6112.11-Orde r

¶17

2/4

¶18

appointed on that post. It is averred in the petition that the respondents again issued an advertisement on 26/05/2011 calling applications for appointment of teachers in the subject of Zoology in the higher secondary school. It is the case of the petitioner that though a post of shikshan sevak in the subject of Botany is vacant, the petitioner has not been appointed and instead an advertisement is issued on 26/05/2011 without calling applications for appointment on the post of shikshan sevak in the junior college in the subject of Botany.

¶19

It is submitted on behalf of the respondents that there is no post available and vacant in the subject of Botany in the junior college. Moreover, according to the respondents, the petitioner has no right to seek an appointment on the post of shikshan sevak merely because the name of the petitioner was placed at Sr.No.2 in the waiting list in the year 2008. It is submitted that applications are invited from candidates having qualifications of M.Sc. either in Botany or Zoology for appointment on the post of teacher to teach higher secondary school classes on 26/05/2011 and though the petitioner has made a reference to the same, the

¶20

petitioner has not applied in pursuance there of.

¶21

wp6112.11-Orde r

¶22

3/4

¶23

On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the petitioner has no right whatsoever to claim appointment on the post of shikshan sevak in the junior college in the subject of Botany. It is necessary to note that the petitioner is seeking the appointment on the basis of his placement in the waiting list at Sr.No.2 in pursuance of an advertisement issued on 26/09/2008 by filing a writ petition on 14/11/2011. The petitioner has no right to claim an appointment on the basis of an advertisement which was issued nearly four years earlier. Even otherwise, no post of shikshan sevak in the subject of Botany is vacant. Apart from the fact that the petitioner has no right to be appointed on the post of shikshan sevak in the subject of Botany on the basis of his placement at Sr.No.2 in the waiting list prepared in the year 2008, the

¶24

case of the petitioner is liable to be dismissed as the petition also suffers from laches having been filed nearly four years after the advertisement was issued on 26/09/2008 and on the basis of which the petitioner was placed in the waiting list. The judgments reported in 2010 (6) SRJ 336 Ravinder Kumar Vs. Staet of Haryana & Ors., AIR 2008 Rajasthan 21 (Sheikh Mohd.

¶25

Afzal Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr.), (1990) 3 SCC

¶26

wp6112.11-Orde r

¶27

4/4

¶28

168 (S.B.Sarkar and others Vs. Union of India and

¶29

others) and the unreported judgment dated 27/07/2012 in Writ Petition No.5193/2011 cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case.

¶30

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

¶31

JUDGE JUDGE

¶32

KHUNTE

Varsha D/O Kawduji Kale v. the Secretary, Ministry of Tribe Development and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Varsha D/O Kawduji Kale v. the Secretary, Ministry of Tribe Development and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Unique Agro PROCESSORS(INDIA)LTD.and2 Ors. Vs the Katol a.P.M.C., and 2 Ors.

Vashila W/O Ramesh Khulsange Vs Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur and Another

Kamlakar S/O Pundlikrao Kharbade Vs the State of Mah.Thro Collector, Amravati and Another

The Tejal Bahuuddeshiya Seva Bhavi Sansthas Ramchandra L Gade Patil Adhyapak Mahavidyala Thr. Secty Vs National Council for Teacher Edun., Thr. Its Membe Secty., and Anr.

Murlidhar Uddhav Lokhande Vs the Chief Executive Officer, Zp, Yavatmal and 2 Ors.

Anup Sureshrao Bende Vs Committee for Scrutiny and 2 Ors.