Dismissed

Ahmednagar Dist. Freedeom Fighters Assn., Satbhai Mala, Ahmednagar v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC4 Jul 2014WP/5169/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a 2013 communication denying competitive examination exemptions to freedom fighter nominees. The High Court ruled the communication was consistent with a Full Bench decision, rejecting the petition as without substance.

What did the court decide?

The petition is rejected as devoid of substance. Pending civil application disposed of.

Ahmednagar Dist. Freedeom Fighters Assn… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

wp5169.14.doc

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 5169 OF 2014

¶5

Ahmednagar Dist. Freedom Fighter's Assn. .. PETITIONER

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

State of Maharashtra & others .. RESPONDENTS

¶8

Mr. A. R. Borulkar, advocate for petitioner. Mr. V. H. Dighe, AGP for the State.

¶9

=====

¶10

CORAM : R.M. BORDE & V. L. ACHLIYA, JJ. DATE : 4^th JULY, 2014.

¶11

PER COURT :

¶12

Petitioner is praying for issuance of directions to respondents to extend benefits of the Government Resolution referred to in the petition. Communication dated 26.09.2013 is under challenge wherein it is recorded that in accordance with the circulars dated 19.1.2013 and 25.10.2005, the nominees of freedom fighters seeking employment cannot be granted exemption from appearing for competitive examination.

¶13

The communication, according to us, is in consonance with the principles laid down by the Full Bench in the matter of Rajendra Pagare and another vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2009(4) Bom.C.R. 928. While dealing with the identical issue in Writ Petition No. 279/2013 decided by Division Bench of this Court to which one of us (Justice R. M. Borde) was member, it is observed in paragraph no. 10 of the judgment as under :

¶14

It is to be taken note of that in view of the

¶15

wp5169.14.doc

¶16

¶17

decision of the Full Bench in the matter of Rajendra Pandurang Pagare & anr. vs. State of Maharashtra & ors., reported in 2009 (4) Bom.C.R. 928, the petitioner who is claiming horizontal reservation specified for the freedom fighters category has to compete with the others from the same category and also has to participate in the process of selection. This procedure is also in consonance with the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court while disposing of Civil Appeal no. 11646 of 1996 and 11724 of 1996. The stand taken by the Collector while opposing the Contempt Petition No. 158 of 2010 is quite elaborate and in consonance with the Full Bench judgment referred to above.

¶18

In view of above, request made by petitioner in the instant petition does not deserve consideration. Petition is devoid of substance hence stands rejected.

¶19

Pending civil application, if any, does not survive and stands disposed of.

¶20

( V. L. ACHLIYA ) ( R. M. BORDE ) JUDGE JUDGE

¶21

dyb

Ahmednagar Dist. Freedeom Fighters Assn., Satbhai Mala, Ahmednagar v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ahmednagar Dist. Freedeom Fighters Assn., Satbhai Mala, Ahmednagar v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

Viren Bhagwandas Asher and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Madhukar Kaluseth Khairnar Vs State of Mah. and Ors.

M/S.v.S.Dube and Co. Vs State of Maharashtra and Others

Ganesh Punjaram Ratnaparkhe Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Devidasrao Rangnathrao Khartude Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Balaji Maruti Chendake and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Anr.