Dismissed

Shrinivas Trimbakrao Solanke v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC11 Jan 2017WP/335/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition where the petitioner sought a post of Assistant Registrar of Firms. The court held that since the petitioner is a practicing lawyer and lacks the required three years of work experience in a government department, the rejection of his application was legally sound.

What did the court decide?

No order attracted. The writ petition was disposed of without costs as the rejection of the application was found to be correct.

Shrinivas Trimbakrao Solanke Vs the State of… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

- 1 -

¶2

WP 335/17

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

 WRIT PETITION NO.335/2017

¶6

Shrinivas Trimbakrao Solanke.

¶7

...Petitioner..

¶8

Versus

¶9

The State of Maharashtra & others.

¶10

...Respondents...

¶11

 .....

¶12

Shri K.K. Chaudhari, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri A.B. Girase, AGP for respondent no.1.

¶13

 .....

¶14

CORAM: V.M. KANADE & SANGITRAO S.PATIL,JJ.

¶15

DATE: 11.01.2017

¶16

ORDER :

¶17

1]Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Government Pleader for the respondent no.1.

¶18

2]The petitioner has applied for the post of Assistant
Registrar of Firms. It is submitted that the

¶19

petitioner's application was rejected on the ground that

¶20

he is not eligible as per the criteria fixed for open
category. The criteria of eligibility is common for all
categories and eligibility criteria is -

¶21

i]The candidate should be a citizen of India.

¶22

WP 335/17

¶23

- 2 -

¶24

ii]His maximum age should be 38 years and he
should not be above 38 years of age.

¶25

iii]He should have atleast a degree of law
and

¶26

iv]Thereafter he should have worked in a
Government department, local authority or a
reputed business establishment for not less
than three years.

¶27

3]It is an admitted position that the petitioner is a
practicing lawyer and as such does not fulfill the said
criteria laid down under condition no.4.4. His

¶28

application was, therefore, rightly rejected. No case is
made out for interfering with the decision taken by the
Maharashtra Public Service Commission. The petition is
disposed of accordingly. No costs.

¶29

 (SANGITRAO S.PATIL, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.)

¶30

ndk/ c1111734.doc

Shrinivas Trimbakrao Solanke v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shrinivas Trimbakrao Solanke v. the State of Maharashtra 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

Mininath Rangnath Kalwaghe Vs Laxmibai Bhausaheb Kharat and Others

Trimbak Mohanrao Patil and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Pramod Bhimrao More Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Kisan Dnyanoday Mandal Gudhes Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital Thro Principal Vs Union of India Thro Secretary and Others

Subhash Ramrao Jadhav Vs the Nanded Waghala Municipal Corporation Nanded through Its Commissioner and Another

Santosh Haribhau Gore and Others Vs Rama Ramdas Babu Khakal and Another