Disposed

Dr. Dhananjay R. Tarlekar v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC2 Feb 2015WP/8765/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged sudden shift from walk-in interview to written examination after his temporary appointment period ended. Court found Government Resolution post-announced and ordered inquiry into administrative lapses regarding last-minute decision.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed; State Government directed to call for explanation from Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation officials regarding decision to hold written examination.

Dr. Dhananjay R. Tarlekar Vs State of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

wp8765.14.sxw

¶2

1/4

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 8765 OF 2014

¶5

Dr. Dhananjay R. Tarlekar ... Petitioner V/s. State of Maharashtra & anr. ... Respondents

¶6

Mr. Vijayprakash Yadav for the petitioners.

¶7

Mr. Deepak R. More for respondent no.2. Mr. P.P. Kakade, AGP for respondent no.1.

¶8

CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND A.S. GADKARI, JJ . 2^nd February, 2015.

¶9

P.C.

¶10

The petitioner participated in the walk-in interview conducted by respondent Corporation consequent to issuance of advertisement (Exhibit “A” to the petition). The grievance of the petitioner is that while the petitioner attended the interview on 13^th July, 2014 at the given time and place by the respondent, he was informed that he will have to appear in written examination. Petitioner was not prepared to give such written

¶11

2/4 wp8765.14.sxw

¶12

examination but he had no other option but to appear in the written examination alongwith other candidates who were holding MBBS degrees. The tenure of appointment was for duration of six months. The appointment was given on temporary basis. The petitioner's contention is that though the six months period has come to an end but it is necessary to issue directions to enquire into the matter and take the action against persons responsible for the lapses committed.

¶13

Respondent no.2 filed affidavit-in-reply. Reliance is placed on the Government Resolution annexed to the reply. The date of resolution is 5^th June, 2014. It is submitted that at the last moment the G.R. issued by the State was brought to the notice and decision was taken to hold written examination instead of walk-in interview (oral). Learned Counsel submits that petitioner alongwith 37 medical officers appeared in the written examination who failed to secure the necessary marks. It is submitted that term of temporary appointment is already over. Petition, therefore, has become infructuous.

¶14

The Government Resolution was issued on 5^th June, 2014. The

¶15

3/4 wp8765.14.sxw

¶16

advertisement was issued on 18^th June, 2014 which obviously was issued after the issuance of Government Resolution. Even if we consider that respondent authorities of the Corporation were not aware of the said G.R. or it was not brought to the notice, still the authorities could have postponed the walk-in interview or written examination and provided sufficient opportunity to candidates to appear in the written-examination. Adopting such a method by the respondent was uncalled for. Such a decision suffers from non-application of mind. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner placed reliance on the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Renu & ors. v/s. District & Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari & anr. (AIR 2014 Supreme Court 2175) and Ajay Hasia & ors. v/s. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi & ors. [(1981) I Supreme Court Cases 722].

¶17

We have perused the aforesaid citations. The fact remains now is that the six monthly appointment period is already over. The posts were not sanctioned and as per exigencies and requirement the Corporation recruited the medical officers for temporary period of six months.

¶18

In view of the development as stated above, no effective orders can

¶19

4/4 wp8765.14.sxw

¶20

be passed in this petition but we direct the State Government; Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department to call for explanation from the then Commissioner of Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation in respect of taking decision or any other officer who was associated with the decision making process for holding written-examination of these candidates at the last moment.

¶21

With aforesaid observations and directions, Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶22

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

¶23

L.S. Panjwani, P.S.

Dr. Dhananjay R. Tarlekar v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Dhananjay R. Tarlekar v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

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

The Administrator, Union Territory of Daman Vs Rankaj R. Patel

Shri.Suresh S/O Pralhad Gajbhiye Vs Maharashtra State Warehousing Corpn.Ltd.Pune and Anr.

Madhukar Uttamrao Suryawanshi and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Smt. Sujata Baban Kadam Vs State of Maharashtra, through the Principal Secretary, Finance Dept - Salex Tax and Ors.

Shri. Sanjay R. Tiwari Vs the Commissioner, Mira Bhayander Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Maruti Pandurang Shinde and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Dept of Co-Operation and Ors.