Disposed

Pandharinath Laxman Waghade and Ors. v. the President, Centralized Pre-Recruitment Eligibility Examination Applicant'S Grievances and Ors.

Bombay HC29 Feb 2012WP/885/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two writ petitions regarding inaction by an authority in deciding representations within the Centralized Pre-recruitment Eligibility Examination were disposed of by issuing a direction to decide within two weeks and communicate.

What did the court decide?

Advertised to decide representations within two weeks and communicate to respondent No.2; respondent No.2 to inform petitioners within one week.

Pandharinath Laxman Waghade and Ors. Vs the… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

88512

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

vgm

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 885 OF 2012

¶6

Pandharinath Laxman Waghade & Ors. ...Petitioners

¶7

V/s.

¶8

The President, Centralized Pre-recruitment Eligibility Examination Applicants’ Grievances Settlement Committee & Ors. ...Respondents

¶9

WITH

¶10

WRIT PETITION NO. 896 OF 2012

¶11

Godge Revannath Shrihari & Ors.

¶12

...Petitioners

¶13

V/s.

¶14

The President, Centralized Pre-recruitment Eligibility Examination Applicants’ Grievances Settlement Committee & Ors. ...Respondents

¶15

Mrs. Samata Kakade- Tapkeer with Mr. Manoj Tekade for the Petitioners

¶16

Mr. Niteen Deshpande for Respondent No. 2

¶17

Ms. S.S. Bhende, A.G.P., for Respondent No. 3

¶18

CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR AND N.M. JAMDAR, JJ. DATE: FEBRUARY 29, 2012

¶19

P.C .:-

¶20

The limited grievance in these petitions is about the inaction

¶21

of the Authority in deciding the representations preferred by the

¶22

petitioners within reasonable time.

¶23

2 88512

¶24

The counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the representations made by the petitioners were received by respondent No.2, which, in turn, have been forwarded to the the Grievance Settlement Committee. The Committee has forwarded confidential report to respondent No. 3, who has to respond thereto.

¶25

The learned A.G.P. appearing for respondent No. 3 submits that respondent No. 3 shall take appropriate decision in the matters within two weeks from today; and communicate the same to respondent No. 2 within same time, so that respondent No.2 can proceed in the matters on the basis of the said communication. Respondent No.2, on receipt of communication from respondent No. 3, shall immediately - not later than one week from the date of receipt of such communication - send intimation in that behalf to the petitioners. That assurance is accepted.

¶26

Petitions are disposed of on the above terms.

¶27

N.M. JAMDAR, J. A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.

Pandharinath Laxman Waghade and Ors. v. the President, Centralized Pre-Recruitment Eligibility Examination Applicant'S Grievances and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pandharinath Laxman Waghade and Ors. v. the President, Centralized Pre-Recruitment Eligibility Examination Applicant'S Grievances and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anjana Sanjay Lawand Vs the Registrar, Solapur University and Ors.

Shri. Prasad Wagle and Ors. Vs Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-Operative Societies, Mumbai Division and Ors.

Damodar Amrut Deore Vs Malegaon Municipal Corporation and Anr.

Sanjay Suryakant Vaidya Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sanjay Suryakant Vaidya Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Rekha Omprakash @ Suresh Chudhari Nee Name Rekha Umarao Chudhari Vs Omprakash @ Suresh S/O Achalaram Chaudhari