A writ petition filed by a peon challenging his non-promotion to the post of Bailiff despite being senior. The court held that the selection process was fair, the petitioner scored lesser marks, and the petitioner's grievance could not be considered.
The writ petition was dismissed. No costs.
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
W.P.No.1632/15
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.1632 OF 2015
Milind S/o Ramchandra Gavale Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others.
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.
Court's or Judge's orders
Mr.A.S.Kale, advocate for the petitioner. Mrs.P.V.Diggikar, A.G.P. for the State. Mr.R.S.Deshmukh, advocate for Respondent No.2.
CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA AND K.L.WADANE,JJ. Date : 17.11.2016.
PER COURT :
2
W.P.No.1632/15
learned counsel, a person below the petitioner in the seniority list have been promoted to the post of Bailiff. The petitioner is senior to Respondent No.3. The additional aspects in favour of the petitioner i.e. the advance increment, educational qualification and participation in the sports is not considered by the Respondent No.2 while denying the promotion to the petitioner for the post of Bailiff. Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 submits that various aspects are required to be examined while considering the candidates for promotion. In the selection process the Confidential Reports, Leave record, Special report and the marks obtained in the oral test are considered. The Respondent No.3 had secured 55 marks and the petitioner could secure only 37 marks. All the reports are considered. The Respondent No.3 was eligible. Adverse remarks in the Confidential reports of the petitioner exist.
3
W.P.No.1632/15
aggregate 50% marks in the selection process. The petitioner could secure only 37% marks, whereas Respondent No.3 has secured 55% marks.
(K.L.WADANE,J.) (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.)
Dt.17.11.2016. asp/office/wp1632.15
4
W.P.No.1632/15
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the lower court's dismissal of the petitioner's promotion request due to lower marks in the oral test was lawful.
Whether any malafides or improper conduct existed in the department's promotion selection process.
Milind S/o Ramchandra Gavale
The State of Maharashtra
S.V.GANGAPURWALA
K.L.WADANE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
