Dismissed

Nanaware Pradip Bansi v. M.P.S.C. and Ors.

Bombay HC5 Dec 2013WP/1390/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the Maharashtra Public Service Commission for declaring results of reserved posts. The bench refilled to examine the result in a sealed envelope before respondent appeared. The petition was dismissed because an efficacious remedy lies in pending Original Application filed by a respondent before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. Sealed envelope is returned.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; sealed envelope returned to Respondent MPSC; petitioner directed to approach the MAT.

Nanaware Pradip Bansi Vs M.P.S.C. and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

WP. 1390-13, CHSWL. 217-13

¶2

VPH

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION No. 1390 OF 2013 WITH CHAMBER SUMMONS (L) No. 217 OF 2013

¶5

Nanaware Pradip Bansi Vs.

¶6

... Petitioner

¶7

M. P. S. C. and Ors. ... Respondents

¶8

¶9

Mr. Vaibhav Joglekar i/b Shamika Ranade, for the Petitioner. Mr. D. A. Nalawade, Govt. Pleader for Respondent Nos. 1 & 3.

¶10

¶11

CORAM : V. M. KANADE, & M. S. SONAK, JJ. DATE : DECEMBER 5, 2013

¶12

PC.

¶13

By this petition which is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Petitioner is seeking appropriate writ, order and direction, directing the Respondent MPSC to declare results of all the scheduled Scheduled Caste candidates, except those mentioned in Exhibit “B1” to the petition, for the appointment to the balance one reserved post of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector of the scheduled caste category pursuant to the written examination and interviews held in 2011-12; or alternatively Petitioner has prayed that a direction

¶14

1 / 3

¶15

WP. 1390-13, CHSWL. 217-13

¶16

may be given to produce the said results in a sealed envelope for the perusal of the Court and thereafter pass an appropriate orders.

¶17

It appears that Respondent No. 4 in this petition was disqualified by MPSC from appearing for the interview. He, therefore, approached Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (for short “MAT”) by filing Original Application No. 382 of 2012. In the said Original Application, an interim relief was granted in terms of prayer clause 15(b) and Respondent No. 4 was directed to be interviewed by the MPSC. Pursuant to the said interim relief which was granted by the MAT, Respondent No. 4 was interviewed, however, its result has not been declared, as a result of which the entire process of appointment to the said post has been stalled. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits if the result of the examination is produced in a sealed envelope, the direction may be given to the MPSC to open the seal and declare the said result.

¶18

In our view, though Respondent No. 4 is served, none appeared on his behalf. An affidavit of service has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner herein. In our view, since the original application filed by Respondent No. 4 is pending with the MAT, the Petitioner has an alternate efficacious remedy either of filing an independent application or to file an application for intervention in Original Application No. 382 of 2012, more particularly, in view of

¶19

2 / 3

¶20

WP. 1390-13, CHSWL. 217-13

¶21

the pendency of the said Original Application filed by Respondent No. 4 before the MAT.

¶22

We are , therefore, not inclined to entertain this petition. Petitioner may approach the MAT. The Respondent MPSC to produce the said result in a sealed envelope before the MAT. We hope and expect that the MAT would decide the Original Application filed by Respondent No. 4 expeditiously and if possible give direction for declaration of result to the MPSC, so that the entire controversy is resolved. If the Petitioner has secured 169 marks in the said examination, which is more than cut off marks fixed in the case and if Respondent No. 4 gets less than 169 marks, then the entire controversy would be automatically resolved. Sealed envelope is returned to the Respondent MPSC. With these directions, writ petition is disposed of.

¶23

In view of disposal of the writ petition, Chamber Summons (L) No. 217 of 2013 filed therein does not survive and is accordingly disposed of.

¶24

Vinayak Halemath

¶25

3 / 3

Nanaware Pradip Bansi v. M.P.S.C. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nanaware Pradip Bansi v. M.P.S.C. 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

The Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks Vs Girdharlal B.Parmar

Anil R. Chaudhari and 17 Ors. Vs Union of India through the General Manager and 3 Ors.

The State vs.S.R.Wagh Vs Sahebrao Ramchandra Wagh

Jt.Action Forum of West.Railway and Central Railway Motormen and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Maureeen P. Fernandes and 27 Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and 10 Ors.