Petitioner sought appointment as a Conductor Junior. Court dismissed writ petition, noting petitioner could not jump queue as candidates ahead on wait list were not yet accommodated, directing her to apply anew if they were.
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.
WP 11315/15
- 1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.11315/2015
Sheetal d/o Dagadu Undare.
..Petitioner..
Versus
The Secretary & Another.
...Respondents..
...
Shri V.B.Wagh, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Ms.V.N.Patil, AGP for the Respondent No.1.
Shri B.S.Deshmukh, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
...
CORAM: S.V. GANGAPURWALA &
K.L. WADANE, JJ.
DATE: 21.11.2016
ORDER :
1]Mr.Wagh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
pursuant to the advertisement issued by the respondent for the
post of Conductor Junior, the petitioner had applied,
participated in the selection process and in the wait list,
the petitioner was shown at Sr.No.16. After verification of
the documents, the name of the petitioner was placed at
Sr.No.17. The respondents are not issuing appointment order
to the petitioner. The learned counsel submits that the
respondents have declined to issue the appointment order in
spite of the fact that the petitioner complies with all the
requirements and is eligible for the said post. The
respondents are also not filing the reply.
WP 11315/15
- 2 -
2]We have heard the learned counsel for the respondents and
the learned AGP for the State.
3]The appointments even as per the petitioner have been
made in the year 2014. Even considering the wait list as is
filed by the petitioner, the petitioner is shown at Sr.No.16
and the wait list candidates upto Sr.No.13 are said to have
been accommodated. Even as per the original wait list, there
are two candidates above the petitioner. The petitioner
certainly cannot jump the queue. Even whether the said wait
list is still operative or not has also not been brought on
record.
4]Considering the aforesaid fact, we are not inclined to
entertain the writ petition. The writ petition is disposed
of. No costs.
5]In case, the candidates above the petitioner are
accommodated, then the petitioner may make an application to
the respondents, which application would be considered by the
respondents on its own merits.
(K.L. WADANE, J.) (S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.)
ndk/ c21111617.doc
3 issues framed by the court
Whether to entertain a writ petition seeking appointment as Conductor Junior despite remaining on a wait list where candidates above the petitioner have not been accommodated.
Whether the petitioner is eligible for appointment given the status of candidates ahead of her on the wait list.
Whether a pending application by the petitioner after waiting list accommodation provides a better remedy.
Sheetal d/o Dagadu Undare
The Secretary
Another
S.V. GANGAPURWALA
K.L. WADANE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court