Dismissed

Prakash Nivrutti Waghmare v. the Sr. Divisional Retail Sales Manager, Indian Oil Corp. Ltd. and Anr.

Bombay HC25 Mar 2014WP/1145/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Division Bench dismissed writ petition challenging rejection of petitioner appointment as Retail Outlet Dealer due to disability certificate ambiguity; distinguished prior precedent finding no interference under Article 226 needed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed holding no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Prakash Nivrutti Waghmare Vs the Sr… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

wp114513.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.1145 OF 2013

¶4

Prakash Nivrutti Waghmare

¶5

Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The Sr.Divisional Retail Sales Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., (Marketing Division), Aurangabad and another

¶8

Respondents

¶9

Mr.Ravindra V. Gore, advocate for the petitioner Mr.A.P.Bhandari, advocate for Respondent No.1.

¶10

CORAM : R.M.BORDE &

¶11

A.M.BADAR, JJ. DATE :25th March, 2014

¶12

PER COURT:

¶13

1 The petitioner’s candidature for his appointment as Retail Outlet Dealer for petroleum products has been turned down by Respondent No.1-Corporation.

¶14

2 The petitioner claims he is entitled for appointment as Retail Outlet dealer for petroleum products being a person belonging to physically handicapped persons’ category. The certificate produced by the petitioner was issued in the year 1991 and it is not specified therein that the disability suffered by him is

¶15

{2}

¶16

wp114513.odt

¶17

of a permanent nature. Apart from this, the petitioner has suffered post fracture deformity to the extent of 48%. The certificate issued in the year 1991 being pressed into service in the year 2013. The petitioner also objects to the selection of Respondent No.2 contending that the certificate annexed by the said Respondent along with his application also does not meet specifications prescribed in the advertisement.

¶18

3 On perusal of the certificate issued in favour of Respondent No.2, we do not propose to accept the proposition canvassed by the petitioner. The certificate produced by Respondent No.2 clearly mentions that he is orthopedically handicapped person having 45% permanent disability and the certificate has been issued by the Medical Superintendent, Government Hospital, as required under the norms.

¶19

4 Even otherwise, grievance raised by the petitioner has been considered and same has been rejected by Respondent No.1Corporation. The petitioner places reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Pundalik Tukaram Chowgule Vs. Union of India & others , reported in 2013 (1) Bom.C.R. 517 and contends that the conditions mentioned in the advertisement are contradictory in nature. The facts giving rise to the presentation of writ petition before the Division Bench were totally different and, therefore, ratio laid down in the said judgment

¶20

wp114513.odt

¶21

{3}

¶22

cannot be made applicable to the facts of instant case. In exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, no interference is called for. Petition is devoid of substance.

¶23

5 Writ Petition stands dismissed.

A.M. BADAR

JUDGE

R.M.BORDE

JUDGE

adb/wp114513

Prakash Nivrutti Waghmare v. the Sr. Divisional Retail Sales Manager, Indian Oil Corp. Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash Nivrutti Waghmare v. the Sr. Divisional Retail Sales Manager, Indian Oil Corp. Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandrakant Uttam Sapkale Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Dr. Rekha Bhagwat Shinde and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Pramila Vishwanath Bankar Vs the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Another

Vishnu Uttamrao Kondamandal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Secondary Ashram School, Chavanwadi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bhagabai Machindra Khade and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others