Dismissed

Santosh Pandurang More v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC7 Sept 2016WP/1087/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court rejected a writ petition challenging the appointment of a respondent to a Welder post. Despite the petitioner scoring higher overall marks, the court held that the low viva voce marks were not capable of inference of artificial boosting, especially given the long delay in challeng.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition stands rejected as it is devoid of substance; no interference with the appointment order.

Santosh Pandurang More Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶2

(1) WP NO.1087 of 2016

¶3

17 WRIT PETITION NO. 1087 OF 2016

¶4

SANTOSH PANDURANG MORE VERSUS

¶5

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶6

Advocate for Petitioners :Mr. Suryawanshi Pravin V AGP for Respondent State: Mr. S.S.Dande Mr.Avinash Deshmukh, Adv. for respondent no.4.

¶7

CORAM : R. M. BORDE & P.R. BORA, JJ. Dated: September 07, 2016

¶8

PER COURT :-

¶9

The petitioner is objecting to the order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dismissing the Original Application presented by him, objecting to the appointment of respondent no.4. The petitioner and respondent No.4 competed for appointment to the post of Welder in the establishment coming under control of respondent nos. 2 and 3. The order of appointment has been issued in favour of respondent no.4 in the year 2008 whereas, the challenge to the order of appointment was raised by presenting Original Application before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in the year 2011. It has been pointed out that the petitioner secured 82 marks out of 200 whereas the selected candidate secured 88 marks out of 200. On conversion, the proportionate marks, as per the prescribed formula, secured by the

¶10

AGP/-

¶11

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶12

(2) WP NO.1087 of 2016

¶13

petitioner are 53.50 whereas, respondent no.4 has secured 53 marks. The petitioner seriously objects to the procedure of holding oral test and contends that the marks of the selected candidate have been artificially boosted to ensure his selection. It is pointed out that five members out of total eight Committee members, have awarded zero marks to the petitioners and thus, the petitioner has been awarded total 7 marks out of total 200; whereas, the selected candidate has been awarded 66 marks. Petitioner relies upon the judgment in the matter of P. Mohanan Pillai Vs. State of Kerala & others in Civil Appeal No.927 of 2007 decided by the Apex court on 23.3.2007.

¶14

The Apex Court, in the aforesaid matter, has observed that in respect of the allocation of marks for viva voce test, no hard-and-fast rule of universal application which would meet the requirements of all cases can be laid down. However, when allocation of such marks is made with an intention which is capable of being abused or misused in its exercise, it is liable to be struck down as ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

¶15

In the instant matter, it is true that the petitioner has been awarded quite low marks at the oral test, however, the marks secured by the selected candidate in the proficiency test are almost equal to the marks secured by the petitioner. Even if assuming that

¶16

AGP/-

¶17

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶18

(3) WP NO.1087 of 2016

¶19

the marks allottable to the petitioner during viva voce test are intentionally reduced; still, it cannot be inferred that the selection panel has artificially boosted the marks receivable by the selected candidate so as to ensure his selection. The total marks secured by the selected candidate in the proficiency test, as has been said earlier, are almost equal to the selected candidates with a marginal difference of 0.5 marks. Considering this aspect, it cannot be said that there is any abuse of the process in respect of award of marks at the oral test. Apart from this, as has been stated earlier, the selected candidate is holding the post since 2008; almost since eight years and for the first time, challenge was raised to his selection only after passage of three years after the date of appointment. In exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, considering the facts of the instant case, no interference is called for.

¶20

The Writ Petition is devoid of substance and hence stands rejected.

¶21

AGP/-

Santosh Pandurang More v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Pandurang More v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vaidyanath Shikshan Sanstha Parli through Its Secretary Vs Nandkishor Papalal Modi and Another

Sanjiwani Tatyaba Dhavad and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

The School Managing Committee, Shri Gurudev Datta Madhyamik Vidyalaya and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sanjay Bhaidas Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Pragatik Shikshan Mandal through President Narendra Waman Kolhe and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Pradip Shankar Sonwane Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others