Disposed

The State of Maharashtra, through Secretary / Chairman, the Maharashtra Public Service Commission v. Shri. Kantilal Janardhan Pawar

Bombay HC10 Feb 2015WP/10632/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by State challenging Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal order directing MPSC to declare examination result. Court held respondent had no enforceable right to age relaxation and petition disposed as order fully complied.

What did the court decide?

Petition stands disposed of.

What the court decided

The State of Maharashtra, through Secretary /… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

skn 1/3 10632.13-wp.sxw

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 10632 OF 2013

¶4

The State of Maharashtra through The Secretary/Chairman, The Maharashtra Public Service Commission.

¶5

... Petitioner.

¶6

V/s. Shri Kantilal Janardhan Pawar. ... Respondents.

¶7

A.D.Kanga, AGP the the petitioner-State.

¶8

Vinod Joshi with Ms.Lata Patne for the respondent.

¶9

CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND A.S. GADKARI, JJ.

¶10

DATED : 10^th February 2015.

¶11

P.C.

¶12

The petitioner-State challenges the judgment and order dated 27^th February 2013 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No.893/2011. The respondent participated in the selection process initiated for the post of Education Officer under the advertisement No.2/2010 issued by the Maharashtra Public Service Commission (“MPSC” for short). Clause-4.2 of the said advertisement stipulated that in case of exceptional higher qualification and experience, the MPSC would consider relaxation of age limit. Under the advertisement, the age limit for the applicants belonging to backward class was fixed at 45 years. Admittedly, on the date of application, the petitioner had crossed 45 years of age. His age was 46 years 8 months and 29. The respondent approached the Tribunal with the prayer that in view of exceptional qualification and experience which he was possessing,

¶13

skn 2/3 10632.13-wp.sxw

¶14

his name may be included in the list of qualified candidates and directions be given to MPSC to call him for interview. By way of interim order, the tribunal directed MPSC to accept the application of the respondent and interview him. Accordingly, the respondent was interviewed on 18^th November 2011. The respondent again approached the Tribunal for declaration of his result as his result was withheld by the MPSC. By the impugned order, the Tribunal directed MPSC to declare the result of the respondent herein. It was further directed that after declaration of result, if it was found that the respondent is meritorious then his name be recommended for being appointed as Education Officer.

¶15

The respondent had taken out contempt proceeding in the said original application as the order passed was not complied with. By order 21^st June 2013, the contempt proceedings were disposed by the Tribunal as as the result of the respondent was declared. The respondent was declared unsuccessful.

¶16

The petitioner- State filed this petition on 11^th July 2013. Learned A.G.P. appearing for the petitioner submits that MPSC had discretion to relax or refuse to relax the age limit in favour of the candidate. The MPSC was not inclined to relax age limit in case of the respondent as he did not have exceptional qualification or experience. Under the order passed by the Tribunal, the MPSC had no other option but to interview the respondent and declare his result. Learned A.G.P. placed reliance on the judgment dated 24^th December 2014 delivered by Division Bench of this Court at Aurangabad in W.P.No.7679/2014 ( The Maharashtra Public Service Commission v. Dr.Digambar Murlidhar Devang ).

¶17

skn 3/3 10632.13-wp.sxw

¶18

It is now an admitted position that the the order of the Tribunal was complied with. The respondent was interviewed and his result was declared. He was, however, declared unsuccessful in the examination. Therefore, there was no question of giving appointment order to the respondent.

¶19

The respondent had approached the Tribunal by filing Original Application No.308/2013 as he was not recommended for the post. The tribunal vide order dated 15^th December 2014 dismissed the said original application. We have perused the said order placed before us today. We have also perused the judgment dated 24^th December 2014 delivered by Division Bench in W.P.No.7679/2014 and the order impugned in this petition. In the advertisement, it was mentioned that the MPSC had discretion whether to give relaxation of age limit to the candidate or not. The respondent has no legal enforceable right to seek direction to the petitioner herein for relaxation of age limit, allow him to apply and call for interview. The fact remains that the tribunal had passed interim order under which the respondent was called for interview and his result was declared. Admittedly, the respondent failed in the examination as he could not be successful in getting required marks.

¶20

The order of the Tribunal has already been implemented, we do not find that any purpose would be achieved by setting aside the order passed by the Tribunal. In view of the observations made above, petition stands disposed of.

¶21

(A.S. GADKARI, J.)

¶22

(NARESH H. PATIL, J.)

¶23

Sanjay Nanoskar, P.S..

The State of Maharashtra, through Secretary / Chairman, the Maharashtra Public Service Commission v. Shri. Kantilal Janardhan Pawar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

The State of Maharashtra, through Secretary / Chairman, the Maharashtra Public Service Commission v. Shri. Kantilal Janardhan Pawar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Vasant M. Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Irrigation Dept and Anr.

Willma Quintall Nelson Qunitall and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Mrs. Devika Dayasagar Late and Ors. Vs Mira Bhayandar Mun. Corporation and Anr.

Dr. Prashant Dhanaji Pawar Vs Maharashtra Animal and Fishery Sciences University

Mr. Popatrao Punjagi Danghe and Ors. Vs Kadava Co-Op. Sugarfactory Ltd. and Ors.

Dr. Prashant Dhanaji Pawar Vs Maharashtra Animal and Fishery Sciences University