Dismissed

Santosh Pandurang More v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC7 Dec 2017WP/11523/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the dismissal of an application before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal where the petitioner's selection for a Blacksmith post was cancelled due to possession of a Welder certificate instead of blacksmith. The High Court found inherent deficiency in the petitioner's qualification and upheld the Tribunal's decision dismissing the writ petition under Article 226

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed with no relief granted to the petitioner.

Santosh Pandurang More Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

6wp11523.16.sxw

¶2

1/5

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 11523 OF 2016

¶5

Santosh P. More ... Petitioner V/s.

¶6

The State of Maharashtra & ors.

¶7

... Respondents

¶8

Mr. Abhijeet Kandarkar for the petitioner. Mr. P.P. More, AAGP for State/respondent.

¶9

CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND R.G. KETKAR, JJ.

¶10

7^th December, 2017.

¶11

P.C.

¶12

The petitioner challenges the judgment and order passed by the

¶13

Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No. 104/2016 dated 29^th June, 2016. The petitioner applied for the post of 'Blacksmith' pursuant to advertisement issued by respondent-State on 31^st December, 2014. The petitioner had certificate issued by ITI in

¶14

the Trade of Welder (Gas and Electric). He applied for the post on

¶15

2/5 6wp11523.16.sxw

¶16

15^th January,2015 and appeared in the written examination conducted

¶17

in the month of February 2015. The practical exam was held in March 2015. His name was published in the list of selected candidates on 30^th March, 2015. At that stage during the scrutiny respondent found that petitioner did not have a certificate of Trade namely 'blacksmith' instead he possessed certificate as 'Welder'.

¶18

By communication dated 26^th May, 2015 the respondent no.3 informed the petitioner that as he did not possess a certificate for the post applied , his selection for the post stood cancelled.

¶19

The petitioner had approached the Tribunal. By a judgment and order the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dismissed the application of the petitioner vide order dated 29^th June, 2016 in Original Application No. 104/2016.

¶20

During the course of hearing it was submitted that Central Government had informed the Joint Director, Technical Education,

¶21

6wp11523.16.sxw

¶22

3/5

¶23

Regional Office, Pune on 14^th May, 2015 as under:-

¶24

“Please refer to your letter no. JDTEP/EST3(B)2015/1813 dated 7^th May, 2015 regarding on the subject mentioned above. It is informed that during the year 1968, the name of the trade was 'Black Smith'. Thereafter, it was renamed as 'Forger & Heat Treatment'.

¶25

The curricula of trade Modular' was revised and renamed as 'Foundryman' in year 1996.”

¶26

The State had issued the subject advertisement prior to receipt of communication sent by Government of India. The Center had informed the State in the year 2015 where the subject advertisement was issued in the year 2014. The Counsel appearing for petitioner submits that it is informed to him that in other part of the State in identical situation persons were appointed as having the trade as 'blacksmith' though they did not possess such certificate. Learned

¶27

AGP appearing for the State submits that in case some such cases are

¶28

4/5 6wp11523.16.sxw

¶29

there, they may be 8-10 years old ones. There is no case made out to re-open such cases by the petitioner.

¶30

Learned AGP further submits that the petitioner by a communication dated 4^th April, 2015 had informed that his certificate be considered as equivalent to the trade as 'blacksmith' but by that time it was too late. The petitioner lacks specific and basic qualification to the post. His selection had to be cancelled.

¶31

We have perused the record placed before us and the judgment

¶32

of the Tribunal. We find that admittedly petitioner does not possess a certificate of trade as 'blacksmith'. The certificate refers to a Trade of Welder (Gas and Electric). According to learned AGP these two trades are entirely different and, therefore, petitioner could not be selected. There is inherent deficiency in the basic qualification of the petitioner

¶33

to the post concerned. We find that Tribunal had considered the relevant issues and reached appropriate conclusions. In exercise of

¶34

our writ jurisdiction under Article 226, we do not notice any perversity

¶35

6wp11523.16.sxw

¶36

5/5

¶37

in the judgment of the Tribunal. There is no merit. Writ Petition is

¶38

dismissed.

¶39

(R.G. KETKAR, J) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.)

¶40

L.S. Panjwani, P.S.

Santosh Pandurang More v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Pandurang More v. the State of Maharashtra 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

Real Gem Buildtech Private Limited and Sunita Goenka Shareholder Vs Union of India and 2 Ors.

D. B. Realty Limited and Anr. Vs the Union of India through the Secretary Dept. of Urban Housing and Poverty Alleviation and 2 Ors.

Mig (Bandra) Realtors and Builders Private Limited Vs the Union of India and 2 Ors.

Maharashtra Public Service Commission Vs Dr. Ratna W/O Dinkar Raokhande and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Dr. Mohan Apparao Jadhav and Ors.

Mr. Rahul Radheshyam Bhomavat Vs Union of India through the Secretary, Department of Reveneue and Ors.