Dismissed

Santosh S/O Bhausing Khanande v. State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Rural Development and Irrigation Department and

Bombay HC23 Jul 2014WP/4460/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged rejection of candidature for appointment as Health Assistant in Scheduled Tribes category. Court dismissed writ petition noting petitioner admitted lack of required 90-day spraying experience under National Programme for Malaria Eradication, rendering advertisement requirements fatal.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed.

Santosh S/O Bhausing Khanande Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

2307wp4460.13.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

¶4

Writ Petition No.4460 of 2013

¶5

(Santosh s/o Bhausing Khanande v. State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, and others)

¶6

Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram,

¶7

appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order

¶8

Shri Jamal, Counsel for Petitioner.

¶9

Shri N.R. Patil, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶10

Shri J.S. Mokadam, Counsel for Respondent Nos.3 and 4.

¶11

Coram : Smt. Vasanti A. Naik & V.K. Jadhav, JJ. Dated : 23rd July, 2014

¶12

By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Health Assistant (Male) in the reserved category of Scheduled Tribes.

¶13

According to the petitioner, the rejection of the candidature of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Health Assistant (Male) is illegal, as the petitioner had one year's experience of fogging and spraying for mosquito-eradication. It is submitted that the petitioner has the necessary experience and the respondents could not have insisted for the experience of 90 days as a spraying worker under the National Programme for Malaria Eradication.

¶14

¶15

2307wp4460.13.odt

¶16

The respondents have sought the dismissal of the petition on the ground that the petitioner does not fulfill the requisite qualification. It is submitted that it was clearly stated in the advertisement dated 12-4-2013 that a candidate desirous of seeking appointment on the post of Health Assistant (Male) should possess the experience of 90 days as a spraying worker under the National Programme for Malaria Eradication. It is stated that the petitioner admittedly does not possess 90 days' experience as a spraying worker under the National Programme for Malaria Eradication. It is submitted that the petitioner had never challenged the advertisement and, therefore, he cannot effectively challenge the prescription of 90 days' experience as a spraying worker under the National Programme for Malaria Eradication.

¶17

On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the prayer made by the petitioner cannot be granted. The petitioner admittedly does not possess 90 days' experience as a spraying worker under the National Programme for Malaria Eradication. Though the petitioner claims to have an experience of one year as a seasonal spraying employee with the Nagar Parishad, he does not possess the experience as provided in the advertisement. The petitioner had never challenged the advertisement and had participated in the selection process. Since the petitioner admittedly does not possess 90 days' experience, as required by the advertisement, under the National Programme for Malaria Eradication, the action of the respondents in rejecting his candidature, cannot be faulted.

¶18

¶19

2307wp4460.13.odt

¶20

Since there is no merit in the petition, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶21

Judge Judge

¶22

pdl

Santosh S/O Bhausing Khanande v. State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Rural Development and Irrigation Department and

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh S/O Bhausing Khanande v. State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Rural Development and Irrigation Department and

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

Vishal S/O Bhagwan Pakhare Vs the Collector, Akola and Another

Dr. Dilip S/O Yeshwantrao Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary Agriculture, Animal Husbandary and Another

Dr. Dilip S/O Yeshwantrao Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary Agriculture, Animal Husbandary and Another

Ashish S/O Rajnikant Mahajan Vs Shri Subhash S/O Gopalrao Kelkar, Executive Director (H.R.)

Vidarbha Youth Welfare Societys Dental College and Hospital Thr. Its Dean and Anr. Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Its Secty. and Anr.

Sureshkumar S/O Madanlal Jindal and Anr. Vs Special Land Acq. Officer, V.I.D.C. and Anr.