Petitioner challenged non-appointment despite being second on a waiting list. Court held that allegations against the Selection Committee provided a justifiable reason for the University to disregard recommendations. Writ petition dismissed.
None
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
wp5387.13
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 5387 OF 2013
DR. TATYARAO DINAJI RASAL VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
Advocate for petitioner : Mr. S. B. Talekar with Mr. U. R. Awate AGP for respondent No. 1 : Mr. S. K. Kadam Advocate for respondent No. 4 : Mr. S. V. Kshirsagar h/f Mr. Ajay
Deshpande
CORAM : A. V. NIRGUDE AND V. K. JADHAV, JJ.
DATED : 19th AUGUST, 2015
P.C. :-
wp5387.13 -2-
University, thereafter, offered this post to Dr. Siddiqui in the month of June, 2008. But he too, declined to accept it. The petitioner expected such offer to be made to him but in vain.
to various posts, serious doubt was expressed, as several allegations were made against the members of the Selection Committee. The litigation was started. The University, thereafter, appointed a committee for examining as to whether the selection process was affected due to any malpractices. The committee conducted an enquiry and gave a finding that nothing was wrong in the selection process. This report came before the University in the month of November, 2010. The petitioner, thereafter, made a representation for getting appointment as per the recommendation of the Selection Committee. No reply was sent to him. Therefore, this petition is filed in April, 2013 for seeking direction to the University for appointing the petitioner as “Subject Matter Specialist - Health (Medicine)”.
wp5387.13 -3-
list had a life of one year and since it lapsed, the petitioner did not get any appointment.
wp5387.13
-4-
they could have offered appointment to the petitioner because he is second in the waiting list. But, in the mean time, they received complaints about the conduct of the Selection Committee. That prompted them to scrap the recommendations altogether. The reason mentioned in the affidavit appears to be justifiable one. As such, we are not inclined to interfere in the petition.
order as to costs.
( V. K. JADHAV, J.) ( A. V. NIRGUDE, J. )
rlj/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a candidate on a waiting list has a vested right to appointment.
Whether the University justifiably declined appointment due to allegations against the Selection Committee.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R. S. Mittal vs. Union of IndiaExplained¶19
(1995) Supp. 2 SCC 230 · Who else cites this
Dr. Tatyarao Dinaji Rasal
The State of Maharashtra
A. V. Nirgude
V. K. Jadhav
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
