Allowed

Bharat Ravindra Sabale v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC14 Feb 2012WP/885/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court, while deciding a writ petition challenging the dismissal of the petitioner's selection application by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, avoided a merits-based decision. Instead, to subserve the ends of justice given the peculiar facts, it directed the public respondent to appoint the petitioner, who was at serial No. 1, on the next available vacancy in pursuance of an earli

What did the court decide?

Directed Respondent No. 4 to appoint the petitioner on the next available vacancy in pursuance of the selection order dated 30.7.2010.

Bharat Ravindra Sabale Vs the State of Mah and Ors. — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1 wp-885.12

¶2

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No.

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 885 OF 2012

¶6

(Bharat Ravindra Sabale vs. The State)

¶7

Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders
Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court's Coram: B.R.Gavai & Sunil P. Deshmukh, JJ
orders or directions Date : 14th February 2012
and the Registrar's
orders.

¶8

Shri D.S. Bagul, Advocate, for the Petitioner.
Shri K.G. Patil, AGP, for Resp. Nos. 1 to 5.
Shri A.V. Deshmukh Adv. for Respondent No. 6.

¶9

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with consent.

¶10

2.The petition arises out of peculiar facts.
Respondent No.4 had published an advertisement
for appointment to 152 posts of Police
Constable, out of which three posts were
reserved for N.T.(D) category. The petitioner
was selected and placed at serial No. 1 in the
waiting list. The petitioner, after coming to
know that Respondent No. 6 had been selected at

¶11

Dhule, as well as Jalgaon, submitted an

¶12

2 wp-885.12

¶13

application with the office of Respondent No. 4
on 31.3.2010, thereby making a grievance that
Respondent No. 6 could not have remained
present at Dhule and Jalgaon, at the same time.

¶14

3. The petitioner, after receiving
necessary information and documents, approached
the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal,
AurangabadBench,byfilingOriginal
Application No.309 of 2010. The learned
Tribunal, by judgment and order dated 8.7.2010,
allowed the said Original Application, thereby
setting aside the selection of Respondent No. 6
herein and directing the appointment of the
present petitioner.

¶15

4.Being aggrieved by the said order,
Respondent No. 6 herein had approached this
Court by way of Writ Petition No.6838 of 2010.
This Court, by judgment and order dated
11.10.2011, allowed the petition and remanded
the matter to the Administrative Tribunal.

¶16

3 wp-885.12

¶17

5.On remand of the matter, after hearing
parties, the learned Administrative Tribunal,
by judgment and order dated 20.1.2012,
dismissed the said Original Application No.309
of 2010 filed by present petitioner, and hence,
present petition.

¶18

6.From the record, it can be seen that the
learned Administrative Tribunal had, on earlier
occasion, allowed the said Original Application
filed by the petitioner herein, however, on
remand by this court, the same has been
dismissed on 20.1.2012. In fact, the petitioner
was also issued selection order on 30.7.2010 in
pursuance to the earlier orders passed by the
learned Administrative Tribunal.

¶19

7.The basic contention of the petitioner is
that Respondent No. 6 could not have remained
present at the same time at Jalgaon, as well as
at Dhule, for attending the selection process
which was going on throughout the State on the
same day. The stand of the petitioner has also

¶20

4 wp-885.12

¶21

been supported by Respondents No. 4 and 5, viz.
SuperintendentofPolice,Dhuleand

¶22

Superintendent of Police, Jalgaon.

¶23

8.Therefore, in the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case, namely, that
Respondent No. 6 has already been issued an
appointment order and is also posted, we do not
find it appropriate to go into the merits of
the matter. inasmuch as any interference at
this stage would put the career of Respondent
No. 6 to an end. However, the fact also cannot
be ignored that the petitioner was at serial
No. 1 and was also issued selection order in
pursuance of the orders earlier passed by
learned Administrative Tribunal.

¶24

9.In that view of the matter, we find it
appropriate that instead of deciding the
controversy on merits, ends of justice would be
sub-served, by directing Respondent No. 4 to
appoint the petitioner in pursuance of the
order of selection dated 30.7.2010 and post him
on immediate next vacancy available.

¶25

5 wp-885.12

¶26

10.The petition is, therefore, allowed.
Respondent No. 4 is directed to appoint the
petitioner in pursuance of the order of
selection dated 30.7.2010 on the next available
vacancy.

¶27

11.Rule is made absolute in above terms.
Petition stands disposed of, accordingly.

¶28

(Sunil P. Deshmukh, J.) (B.R. Gavai, J.)

¶29

pnd/wp-885.12

Bharat Ravindra Sabale v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharat Ravindra Sabale v. the State of Mah and Ors.

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

Shahadeo Lmahadeo Mohod Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Satish Damodhar Kasar. Vs the State of Mah. and Others.

Pandurang Ramrao Tangadpalle. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others.

Asaram Ravji Sathe Vs Secretary Office of the Governer Mumbai and Anr.

Sandeep Bhausaheb Dangat and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Madhukar Chandra Sha Limbare Vs the State of Mah and Ors.