This one-line dismissal rejects a writ petition by a petitioner who failed three departmental examinations over nine years and was not promoted, ruling the petition devoid of substance and refusing extraordinary jurisdiction.
The writ petition is stood rejected as it is devoid of substance.
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.
1 43-wp10689.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.10689 OF 2016
Rameshwar Bhaskar Dandale
..Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra
and ors.
..Respondents
Mr.S.A.Deshmukh, Advocate for petitioner
Mr.A.S.Shinde, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 3
CORAM : R.M. BORDE AND
SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : NOVEMBER 24, 2016
PER COURT :
Heard.
2.The petitioner has failed to pass the
departmental examination within three chances
during the stipulated period of nine years. Since
the petitioner did not comply with the
requirements of the relevant rules prescribing
promotional avenues, he has not been considered
for promotion along with respondent nos.4 to 11,
2 43-wp10689.odt
who claimed to be juniors to the petitioner. The
Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal has considered
all the relevant aspects and turned down the
request of the petitioner.
3.We are not inclined to entertain the
petition in exercise of extra ordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India. The petition is devoid of substance and
as such, stands rejected.
[SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.] [R.M. BORDE, J.]
kbp
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to entertain a writ petition challenging non-promotion for failure to clear departmental examinations.
Whether the petition deserves intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Rameshwar Bhaskar Dandale
The State of Maharashtra
R.M. BORDE
SANGITRAO S. PATIL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court