Dismissed

Navnath S/O. Domaji Mangar v. President District Selection Committee and Collector Chandrapur and Others

Bombay HC10 Oct 2016WP/4554/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought judicial intervention to be selected from the OBC reserved category, contending he paid the applicable fee despite erroneously marking himself as 'Open' category on the application form. The court rejected his claim for lack of diligence.

What did the court decide?

None. Petitioner's application for reconsideration based on fee paid was rejected.

Navnath S/O. Domaji Mangar Vs President District… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

10.10.wp.4554.16

¶2

¶3

IN THE COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 4554/2016

¶5

(Navnath s/o Domaji Mangar vs. President, District Selection Committee and Collector, Chandrapur & others )

¶6

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders

¶7

.............................................................................................................................................. Mr. S.S. Dhengale, Advocate for the petitioner Ms.N.P.Mehta, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent no.1

¶8

Mr. J.B. Kasat, Advocate for Respondent no.2

¶9

CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & V.M. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATED : 10^th October, 2016.

¶10

Heard.

¶11

The petitioner has filed this petition, contending that his application has been erroneously considered from ‘Open’ category. It is the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner has paid the fees of Rs. 75/- which is applicable to reserved category candidate as against Rs. 150/- which is applicable to Open category candidate. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner though has erroneously shown his category to be Open and since he had paid the fees of Rs. 75/-, he should have been considered from reserved category of OBC.

¶12

Perusal of the application form would reveal

¶13

10.10.wp.4554.16

¶14

¶15

that the category shown by the petitioner is ‘Open’. Perusal of the affidavit-in-reply would reveal that though the petitioner was shown as Open category candidate in the select list and though he was shown to be a wait-listed candidate in the open category at Sr.No.1, he has never objected that he was belonging to to reserved category and not Open category.

¶16

In that view of the matter, we do not find that a case is made out for interference. The petitioner should have been diligent enough while submitting his application form.

¶17

Rejected.

¶18

JUDGEJUDGE

sahare

10.10.wp.4554.16

C E R T I F I C A T E

¶23

“ I certify that this Judgment/Order uploaded is a true and correct copy of original signed Judgment/Order.”

¶24

Uploaded by: N.B.Sahare P.S.

¶25

Uploaded on: 10.10.2016.

Navnath S/O. Domaji Mangar v. President District Selection Committee and Collector Chandrapur and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Navnath S/O. Domaji Mangar v. President District Selection Committee and Collector Chandrapur and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Premsagar S/O Vithoba Meshram Vs Gram Panchayat Chicholim through Its Secretary and Others

Kale Impex Private Limited, through Its Director, Mr. Mohan Sudhakar Kale and Others Vs Union of India, through Its Secretary, Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi and Others

The State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary, Dept of Home Mantralaya, Mumbai and Another Vs Gajanan Vitthal Palkar

Prof. Subhash Shatrughna Rangari Vs State of Maha. through Secretary, Ministry of Social Justice and Special Assistance, Mumbai and Ors.

Shri. Gajanan Maharaj Rugna Seva Samiti, Thr Krushan S/O Shantaram Karpe Akola Vs the State of Maha. Thr Secretary, Mantralaya, Mumbai

Shri Narendramal S/O Mishrimal Bafna Vs Urmila Wd/O Harpalisngh Thakur and Others