Dismissed

Shaikh Chand Pasha Shaikh Abdul v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC20 Sept 2017WP/4359/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged the termination of his appointment as taluka commandant of Home Guards, arguing lack of legal basis in selection instructions. The court dismissed the petition, holding that uniform application of guidelines and the petitioner's non-selection meant the order stood unaffectated. No relief was granted.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; rule discharged. No relief granted.

Shaikh Chand Pasha Shaikh Abdul Vs the State of… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

WP-4359.11.doc

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 4359 OF 2011

¶5

Shaikh Chand Pasha s/o Shaikh Abdul Age: 40 years, Occu. At present Nil, R/o Raviwar Peth (Bagadi). Bouddh Wada Road, Vasmat, Taluka: Vasmat, District : Hingoli .. Petitioner

¶6

versus

¶7

1. The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Department of Civil Protection and Home Guard (Under the Department of Home Affairs), M. S., Mantralaya, Mumba.

¶8

1. The Commandant General, Home Guards, M.S., Old Secretariat (Extension), M. G. Road, Mumbai.

¶9

1. The Senior Administrative Officer (Administration and policy) Civil Protection and Home Guard, M. S., O/o The Commandant General, Home Gurards, M.S. Old Secretariat (Extension), M.G. Road, Mumbai.

¶10

1. The District Commandant, Home Guards, Hingoli, Taluka and District : Hingoli. .. Respondents

¶11

¶12

Mr. Rajendrraa S. Deshmukkh, Advocate for petitioner Mr. S. K. Tambe, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent

¶13

WP-4359.11.doc

¶14

¶15

CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH AND SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ. DATE : 20^th September, 2017

¶16

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶17

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents by consent finally.

¶18

Petitioner purports to challenge order dated 28-12-2010 whereunder petitioner's appointment as taluka commandant of home guards, Basmat squad has been brought to an end.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Rajendrraa Deshmukkh has submitted that the reasons for which the petitioner has not been selected may not have any legal basis having regard to the provisions of the Maharashtra Home Guards Act, 1947 and rules thereunder. He particularly refers to section 3 as well as rules 3, 8 and 9. He submits, even if the instructions are so given, those would be in excess of the powers and bounds of the provisions. He, therefore, submits that the impugned order dated 28-10-2010 is liable to be set aside.

¶20

Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondents submits that although submissions as aforesaid are advanced, it may not be ignored that the instructions so issued

¶21

WP-4359.11.doc

¶22

¶23

and followed for selected candidates in present case, are uniformly applied across the Maharashtra State and there is no variation in the same. Even the persons who were interviewed for the post of taluka commandant, home guards, Basmat squad, a few other candidates were not selected having regard to aforesaid instructions and for similar reasons as were considered in respect of the petitioner by the interviewing committee. He submits, in the absence of challenge to those instructions, it is difficult to sustain the challenge to impugned order as has been posed nor impugned orders can be flawed.

¶24

It appears that pursuant to the selection procedure employed for selection of taluka commandant, home guard, Basmat taluka squad as many as fourteen candidates were called for interview and from among them, four persons as have been referred to on page 70 of the reply had been selected. Petitioner did not figure in the said select list for the reasons as are recorded by the interviewing committee as are appearing on page 73 of the reply.

¶25

It appears that since 28-12-2010, petitioner could not continue with the post as desired. It is not a case wherein it can be said that petitioner is a candidate selected under procedure employed nor such is the case of petitioner. In any case, since the guidelines / instructions have been uniformly applied and petition does not pose challenge to those instructions, we do not consider it

¶26

WP-4359.11.doc

¶27

¶28

expedient to unsettle impugned order while the petitioner had not been selected at all. The impugned order, as such, is not liable to be faulted with.

¶29

Writ petition, as such, does not carry any substance and the same accordingly stands dismissed. Rule discharged.

¶30

SANGITRAO S. PATIL JUDGE

¶31

SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, JUDGE

¶32

pnd

Shaikh Chand Pasha Shaikh Abdul v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaikh Chand Pasha Shaikh Abdul 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

Hanuman Radhakisan Joshi Vs the Union of Inidia and Anr.

Ms. Indu Manik Gite and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

M/S Ganesh Motor Driving School and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bhagwanrao Shamrao Pawar Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Village Panchayat Employees Union for Latur through President Abdul Raheman Ismail Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Suresh Gangadhar Dharasurkar Vs Chief Secretary Gad Mantralaya Mumbai and Anr.