Dismissed

Sandeep Bhausaheb Ohal v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC25 Nov 2014WP/1064/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged the appointment of a Project Affected Person to an electrician post reserved for the open category. The court dismissed the petition due to the petitioner's significant delay in filing and found no vested right.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sandeep Bhausaheb Ohal Vs the State of Maharashtra and… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

WP1064.14.odt

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 1064 OF 2014

¶5

SANDEEP BHAUSAHEB OHAL VERSUS

¶6

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶7

Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. S.L. Bhapkar AGP for Respondents : Mr. A.V.Deshmukh Advocate for Respondent 3 : Mr. M.N. Navandar Advocate for Respondent 4 : Mr. A G Kanade

¶8

CORAM : S V GANGAPURWALA & V.K. JADHAV, JJ. Dated: November 25, 2014

¶9

PER COURT :-

¶10

Mr. Bhapkar, the learned counsel submits that the petitioner had applied for the post of Electrician as per the Advertisement dated 18.01.2008 wherein the post of Electrician was meant for a candidate from open category. The petitioner had appeared for written examination so also the oral interview were conducted on 21.11.2009. The learned counsel submits that, subsequently, one more advertisement was issued by the respondents on 09.08.2009 showing the said post for project affected person. The said advertisement was issued on the alleged circular dated 15.07.2009. However, in spite of the fact that the circular was issued on 15.07.2009 and fresh advertisement was issued on 09.08.2009, still the petitioner was interviewed on 21.11.2009. According to the learned counsel, the subsequent advertisement also does not state that the post which was meant for open category in respect of Electrician, has been abolished. According to the learned counsel, the same would be an additional

¶11

¶12

WP1064.14.odt

¶13

post for a person from Project Affect Person category. The learned counsel submits that respondent No. 4 had not applied pursuant to the advertisement dated 09.08.2009 and he had applied pursuant to the earlier advertisement dated 18.01.2008. If that is so, then the present petitioner, who has secured more marks than respondent No. 4 ought to have been appointed. The learned counsel submits that the information given under Right to Information Act clearly suggests that no candidate was selected pursuant to the advertisement dated 18.01.2008 for the post of Electrician. However, respondents are coming with the case that respondent No. 4 is selected pursuant to his application filed in accordance with the advertisement of the year 2008. The learned counsel submits that, even call letters issued to the petitioner shows that the same is pursuant to the advertisement of the year 2008 and 2009. All these aspects negated the case of respondents. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner was not supplied with documents earlier. As such, he could not file petition immediately.

¶14

Mr. Navandar, the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 & 3, submits that when the selection process pursuant to the advertisement dated 18.01.2008 was undergoing, the Government Circular dated 15.07.2009 was issued pursuant to which, it was directed to keep 50% posts for Project Affected Person category candidates. As such, a fresh advertisement was issued and the candidates who have applied pursuant to the

¶15

3 WP1064.14.odt

¶16

advertisements for the year 2008 and 2009 were considered for Project Affected Person category and respondent No. 4 was appointed accordingly.

¶17

We have heard the learned counsel for respondent

¶18

No. 4 also.

¶19

Respondent No. 4 is appointed on 03.03.2010. The petition is filed three and half years thereafter. It would be too late in a day to contend that a person who was appointed four years back is appointed illegally. No proper explanation is coming forth for such delay in filing petition. Even considering the case put forth by the petitioner, it is clear that the petitioner was never issued appointment order. The petitioner do not have any vested right even if his name appears in the select list. It is not a case that any other candidate from open category has been appointed as Electrician. In view of the State policy wherein 50% posts were required to be reserved for Project Affected Person category, a person of P.A.P. category is appointed on the said post. The case of the petitioner could have been considered if any other candidate having less marks than the petitioner from the open category and not from the Project Affected Person category would have been appointed.

¶20

Considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶21

( V.K. JADHAV, J. ) ( S V GANGAPURWALA, J. ) aaa/....

Sandeep Bhausaheb Ohal v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sandeep Bhausaheb Ohal v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Akhtar Khan Usman Khan Pathan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ajay Vasantappa Shete Vs Sansthan Shri Guru Mahaling Math Bardapur Dist.Beed Thru Gpa Revansiddha Mahadevayya Hiremath and O

Nagnath Tulshiram Kamble Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Rajani Harishchandr Hire Vs the Staet of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ramesh Vithalrao Kulkarni Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Babasaheb Maruti Gite Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others