Petitioner, having hearing disability, challenged the appointment of Respondent No.4 who scored higher marks. Court found priority rules complied and disposed of petition as petitioner was already appointed.
Petitioner was appointed on 14.5.2015; writ petition dismissed.
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.
933-wp.5174.2015
1/3
nsc.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.5174 OF 2015
Sagar Shivaji Patil
...Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents
Ms.Leena Patil, for the Petitioner. Mr.Vikas Mali, AGP for the Respondent No.1 – State. Mr.Ramesh D. Rane, for the Respondent Nos.2 and 3. Mr.Prashant Bhavke, for the Respondent No.4.
CORAM : V. M. KANADE & REVATI MOHITE DERE, JJ.
DATE : 14th JANUARY, 2016
P.C. :
933-wp.5174.2015
2/3
handicapped category.
933-wp.5174.2015
3/3
no.1 in the waiting list has already been appointed on 14th May, 2015. No
case therefore is made out for setting aside the order of appointment of respondent no.4.
REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.
V.M. KANADE, J.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appointment of respondent No.4, having higher marks and qualifying disability, was lawful compared to the petitioner.
Whether a writ petition is maintainable after the petitioner has already been appointed.
Sagar Shivaji Patil
The State of Maharashtra
V. M. Kanade
Revati Mohite Dere
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
