Dismissed

Sagar Shivaji Patil v. the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Ors.

Bombay HC14 Jan 2016WP/5174/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition challenging the selection of a government employee for a disabled quota. The petitioner, with 104 marks, sought to overturn the appointment of a respondent with 110 marks who also had a locomotor disability, citing Government Resolution Clause 6. The court held the respondent's selection correct and noted the petitioner was already appointed.

What did the court decide?

The petition was disposed of without any case being made out to set aside the respondent's appointment.

Sagar Shivaji Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2016)

933-wp.5174.2015

1/3

nsc.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.5174 OF 2015

Sagar Shivaji Patil

...Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents

¶10

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.

¶11

CORAM : V. M. KANADE & REVATI MOHITE DERE, JJ.

¶12

DATE : 14^th JANUARY, 2016

¶13

P.C. :

¶14

The grievance of the petitioner is that he is a person having hearing impairment and is having 45% hearing disability. In the examination which was conducted by the respondents, the petitioner was shown at serial no.1 in the waiting list and respondent no.4 was selected in

¶15

933-wp.5174.2015

¶16

2/3

¶17

handicapped category.

¶18

Mr.Bhavke, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.4 submitted that a detailed affidavit in reply has been filed. He has taken us through the averments made in the affidavit in reply.

¶19

In our view, there is substance in the submission made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.4 that the petitioner has wrongly interpreted the advertisement dated 12^th August, 2014. Clause – 6 of the Government Resolution dated 27^th June, 2008 clearly mentions as to how the priority is to be calculated. The said Rules mention that if two persons receive the same marks then the manner in which the priority is to be given is specified in the said Rules. In the present case, admittedly respondent no.4 scored 110 marks whereas the petitioner has scored 104 marks. We are of the view therefore that respondent no.4 was rightly selected by the Executive Engineer since he was also having locomotor disability.

¶20

933-wp.5174.2015

¶21

3/3

¶22

We are informed that the petitioner who was shown at serial

¶23

no.1 in the waiting list has already been appointed on 14^th May, 2015. No

¶24

case therefore is made out for setting aside the order of appointment of respondent no.4.

¶25

Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶26

REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

¶27

V.M. KANADE, J.

Sagar Shivaji Patil v. the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sagar Shivaji Patil v. the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nirmala Mahendra Shah Vs Kavits Sandeep Shah and 12 Ors.

Mehmood Iqrar Shaikh Vs Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority and 5 Others

Ravindra Dagadu Jadhav and 12 Ors. Vs M/S Singasane Engineering and Realty and 7 Ors.

Mr. Sandeep Chandrakant Kalekar Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Office of Collector and Anr.

Mr. Sandeep Chandrakant Kalekar Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Office of Collector and Anr.

Cyrus Naval Mistry Vs Jal Homee Billimoria