The High Court rejected a writ petition challenging a selection process. The court found no merit due to the petitioner's failure to name specific candidates with lower marks who were appointed, rejecting general allegations.
The writ petition was rejected.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
26 WRIT PETITION NO. 6105 OF 2014
TABISH ZAMA ABDUL RAUF
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
Advocate for Petitioner : Ms. Pathan Tahiwarkhan Wajeedkhan
Mr. SD Kaldate, AGP for Respondent No.1
Ms. Reddy Ranjana D. For R/2 and 3
Mr. Chapalgaonkar S.G. For R/4
CORAM : S.S. SHINDE & P.R. BORA, JJ.
Dated: February 18, 2016
PER COURT :-
1)Heard. Additional affidavit has been tendered on
behalf of Respondent No.4, wherein it is stated that no
candidate, who has less marks than the petitioner, has been
appointed. In that view of the matter, we do not find any
merit in the petition. Apart from it, the petitioner has not
mentioned the name of a candidate, who has secured less marks
than the petitioner and appointed by the respondent either in
the petition or in rejoinder affidavit. Only general
allegations are made, which cannot be countenanced . For the
reasons aforesaid, the petition sans merit and the same
stands rejected.
BDV-1
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the selection process where general allegations were made without naming specific candidates with lower marks who were appointed.
TABISH ZAMA ABDUL RAUF
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
OTHERS
S.S. SHINDE
P.R. BORA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court