Disposed

Seema Ananda Patne v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC17 Feb 2015WP/1633/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a recruitment selection for the post of watchman. The High Court directed the Commissioner to complete the selection process on its own merits based on the open category rather than the reserved category and disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Commissioner to complete the selection process on its own merits and consider the petitioner's application from the open category.

Seema Ananda Patne Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

wp1633.15.sxw

¶2

1/2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 1633 OF 2015

¶5

Seema Ananda Patne	...	Petitioner
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra & ors.	...	Respondents

¶6

Mr. Rahul S. Kadam for the petitioners.

¶7

Mr. P.P. Kakade, AGP for State. Mr. D.R. More for respondent no.2.

¶8

CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND A.S. GADKARI, JJ . 17^th February, 2015.

¶9

P.C.

¶10

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

¶11

The petitioners applied against advertisement issued by respondent Corporation for recruiting watchman. Photostat copy of petitioner's application presented before us today by Counsel appearing for Corporation shows that she applied from open category. The petitioner in the initial stages was considered from reserved category. This was later on noticed by the Corporation authorities and thereafter corrective steps were taken. The insistence of the petitioner is that as she was considered from

¶12

2/2 wp1633.15.sxw

¶13

the reserved category, she should be selected and accordingly the results be declared.

¶14

Learned Counsel appearing for Corporation has placed on record documents which includes the application form, advertisement and final list published inviting objections.

¶15

The advertisement does not mention the procedure to be followed of inviting objections of the candidates to the marks obtained by them. In the first attempt the list had undergone changes after receiving objections. Second time it is again put for inviting objections. We are not pointed out any such procedure enunciated under the recruitment rules regarding inviting objections from the candidates who participated in the selection process.

¶16

We direct the Commissioner to personally look into the matter and complete the selection process on its own merits. We direct that petitioner's application shall be considered from open category. With aforesaid observations and directions, writ petition is disposed of.

¶17

(A.S. GADKARI, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.)

¶18

L.S. Panjwani, P.S.

Seema Ananda Patne v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Seema Ananda Patne v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

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

Sukumar Bandu Bhosale and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra through Co-Operative Dept. and Ors.

The Deputy Consevator of Forest, Thane Forest Division Vs Shri. Mohan Laxman Kumbhar

The Deputy Consevator of Forest Vs Shri. Dinesh Krushna Korde

Kum. Ujwala Ramesh Parab alias Sou. Anushka Abhijit Juvekar Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Urban Development Dept and Ors.

Shri. Yogesh Sudhakar Hiwarale Vs the Collector, Nashik and President District Selection Committee, Nashik and Ors.

Kum. Ujwala Ramesh Parab alias Sou. Anushka Abhijit Juvekar Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Urban Development Dept and Ors.