Dismissed

Shri Nitin Rajkumar Mashidkar and Another v. the Union of India, Represented Thr. Secretary, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi and Others

Bombay HC15 Dec 2017MCA/1424/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This review petition was rejected. The High Court found that the absence of a benchmark for the Trade test and late notice to certain candidates were not raised before the Central Administrative Tribunal, precluding review.

What did the court decide?

Review petition dismissed; no order as to costs.

What the court decided

Shri Nitin Rajkumar Mashidkar and Another Vs… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

1512mca1424.17

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR .

¶4

MCA (REVIEW) NO. 1424 OF 2017 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 183 OF 2017

¶5

(Shri Nitin Rajkumar Mashidkar & Anr. vs. The Union of India thr. Secretary, Ministry of Defence & Ors.)

¶6

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

¶7

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & ARUN D. UPADHYE, JJ. DECEMBER 15, 2017.

¶8

Heard Shri M.G. Burde, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mrs. Mugdha Chandurkar, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

¶9

We find that the contention about not prescribing any bench mark for passing Trade test was not raised before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT).

¶10

The explanation furnished during arguments is, the petitioners were not aware of the reason for not calling them at that juncture. However, review petition was filed before the CAT. When the petitioners were aware of this fact, thereafter they approached this Court in writ petition and in writ petition the only prayer is to direct respondent No. 3 to disclose the marks of Trade test obtained by each of the candidates in order to ascertain as to whether they were qualified or not. Thus, absence of stipulation of bench mark was not questioned and holding of Trade test itself was not made bone of contention.

¶11

In our order dated 22.09.2017 disposing of writ petition, we have taken note of the fact that passing of

¶12

¶13

1512mca1424.17

¶14

Trade test as also written examination was essential. Written test was held first and thereafter in prescribed ratio, the candidates were subjected to Trade test.

¶15

The other contention is, Apprentices as also ITI candidates were called for written test and the petitioners got knowledge thereof only after the results were declared. 6. The contentions advanced by the petitioners, when writ petition was argued, are looked into by us and thereafter we have passed the orders dated 22.09.2017.

¶16

We, therefore, find no case made out for review. MCA is rejected. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶17

JUDGE JUDGE

¶18

*GS.

Shri Nitin Rajkumar Mashidkar and Another v. the Union of India, Represented Thr. Secretary, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Shri Nitin Rajkumar Mashidkar and Another v. the Union of India, Represented Thr. Secretary, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi 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

Samiksha D/O Raju Dhole and Another Vs Union of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Director Gen. Health Service and Ors.

Divisional Manager, Central Bank of India, a Nationalized Bank Akola Vs Rameshkumar S/O. Harkishanji Sharma (Dead) through Lrs. Sanjaykumar S/O Harikishanji Sharma and Ors.

Samiksha D/O Raju Dhole and Another Vs Union of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Director Gen. Health Service and Ors.

Pramod S/O Yadavrao Sirsikar Vs the Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Mumbai and Others

Jairaj S/O Pralhadsingh Gahalod Vs the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nagpur and Another

Dr. Dashrath Baliram Jadhao Vs State of Mah. Thr. Secy.Higher and Technical Educn. Mantralaya, Mumbai