Disposed

Ravindra Yadavrao Sirsikar v. State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, Urban Development Dept. and Ors.

Bombay HC28 Sept 2015WP/3763/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the respondent to observe a previous order dated 6 December 2013. That prior order mandates that the authority consider a fresh application on merits and grant age relaxation to avoid rejection solely due to age criteria.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of by incorporating the observations that the authority must grant age relaxation and consider the application on merits, as per a previous order.

Ravindra Yadavrao Sirsikar Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

1/3

¶2

wp-3763-15.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.3763 OF 2015

¶6

Ravindra Yadavrao Sirsikar ….Petitioner v/s. State of Maharashtra & ors. ….Respondents

¶7

Mr.Milind Sathe, Sr.Advocate with Ms.Trupti Puranik and Mr.Joel J. Carlos for the Petitioner.

¶8

Ms.S.S.Bhende, AGP for Respondent No.1.

¶9

Mr.A.S.Rao with Mr.Prashant Kamble for Respondents Nos. 2 & 3.

¶10

CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA &

¶11

A.A.SAYED, JJ.

¶12

DATED : 28 SEPTEMBER 2015

¶13

ORDER:

¶14

Mr.Milind Sathe, Learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the

¶15

Petitioner makes a statement, in view of the subsequent development, the

¶16

Post of Municipal Secretary, Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation is advertised and the appointment will be made accordingly.

¶17

However, it is made clear that so far as the Petitioner is concerned, it will be subject to the following observations of the order of this Court dated 6 December 2013 passed in Writ Petition No.11059 of 2012

¶18

( Ravindra Yadavrao Sirsikar v/s. The State of Maharashta and ors.):

1/3

Uday P. Kambli

2/3

wp-3763-15.doc

“In the event such a fresh advertisement is issued and the petitioner chooses to apply, the Municipal Commissioner or the Competent Authority under the Corporation should consider the petitioner’s application on its merits and in accordance with Rules, even if the petitioner is unable to satisfy the requirement of age on the date of the issuance of the advertisement. Meaning thereby, that the authority should grant age relaxation and should not reject the application of the petitioner, only because it does not satisfy that criteria.”

¶24