Dismissed

Sandeep Namdeo Navghade and Others v. State of Maharashtra, through Its Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Bombay and Others

Bombay HC19 Aug 2014WP/1664/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal order quashing appointment as Police Patil. Court upheld Tribunal, ruling selection vitiated by proxies. Dismissed W.P.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; Respondent 3 to conduct interviews and make appointments within two months.

What the court decided

Sandeep Namdeo Navghade and Others Vs State of… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

WP1664-14

¶2

¶3

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No . IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 1664/2014

¶5

(SANDEEP NAMDEO NAVGHADE & OTHERS VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & OTHERS)

¶6

¶7

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶8

¶9

Shri S. Borkar, counsel for the petitioners. Shri D.P. Thakre, Addl. G.P. For the R-1 to 3. Shri S.Y. Deopujari, counsel for the R-4 to 10.

¶10

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND

¶11

A.S. CHANDURKAR, JJ.

¶12

DATE : AUGUST 19, 2014.

¶13

By this petition, the petitioners impugn the order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dated 26.02.2014 allowing the original application filed by the respondent nos.4 to 10 and quashing the appointment of the petitioners on the post of Police Patil in the respective villages.

¶14

On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the Tribunal was justified in allowing the original application filed by the respondent nos.4 to 10 and setting aside the appointment of the petitioners on the post of Police Patil. It appears that though the Enquiry Committee consisted of five members and though two of the members were not present in the Committee while conducting the interviews of the petitioners and the other candidates, the proxys/ representatives of the two members interviewed the candidates along with the other three members of the Committee and allotted marks to them. The Tribunal rightly held that when 'A' and 'B' were appointed as members of the Committee, only 'A' and 'B' could have acted as members of the Committee and they could not

¶15

WP1664-14

¶16

¶17

have sent their representatives on the Committee for conducting the interviews of the candidates. Since the selection process was vitiated, the Tribunal rightly held that the appointment of the petitioners on the post of Police Patil was bad in law. The Tribunal rightly relied on the Government Resolution dated 23.08.2011 while allowing the original application filed by the respondent nos.4 to 10. Since it was necessary for the members of the Committee to remain present at the time of conducting the interviews and since the interviews could not have been conducted by the representatives of the members on the Committee, we find no fault with the impugned order of the Tribunal, allowing the original application filed by the respondent nos.4 to 10 and quashing the appointment of the petitioners on the post of Police Patil.

¶18

Since the order of the Tribunal is just and proper, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶19

The respondent no.3 may conduct the interviews in accordance with law and make the appointments of the suitable candidates within a period of two months. Order accordingly.

¶20

JUDGE JUDGE

¶21

APTE

Sandeep Namdeo Navghade and Others v. State of Maharashtra, through Its Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Bombay and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Sandeep Namdeo Navghade and Others v. State of Maharashtra, through Its Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Bombay and Others

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

Naresh Laxmanrao Kelzarkar. Vs the Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny.

Ramesh Hiraman Kohad. Vs the Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny.

Santosh Ramchandra Kumbhare. Vs the State of Mah.

Dnyan Sanwardhan Shikshan Sanstha Gond-Umari Vs Dy. Director of Education, Nagpur and 2 Others

Pritesh S/O Raju Thul Vs Union of India, through Its Secretary, Ministry of Coal New Delhi and Another

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Vidrabha and 2 Ors. Vs Anjuman Hami-E-Islam, Sadar Thr. President AND2 Ors.