Disposed

Mahesh Daulatrao Patil v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC24 Aug 2017WP/8436/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging late appointment order was disposed of after the appointment was issued. The court granted liberty to the petitioner to file a detailed representation to claim seniority based on merit list position, directing the authority to decide within three months.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to submit detailed representation to claim seniority; authority directed to decide within three months.

Mahesh Daulatrao Patil Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

WP 8436/17

¶2

- 1 -

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

 WRIT PETITION NO.8436/2017

¶6

Mahesh Daulatrao Patil.

¶7

...Petitioner..

¶8

Versus

¶9

The State of Maharashtra & two others.
...Respondents...

¶10

 .....

¶11

Shri C.K. Shinde, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri A.R. Kale, AGP for respondent no.1 – State.
Shri A.S. Bajaj, Advocate for respondent nos.2 & 3..

¶12

 .....

¶13

CORAM: SHANTANU S. KEMKAR & NITIN W. SAMBRE, JJ.

¶14

DATE: 24.08.2017

¶15

ORDER :

¶16

1]The learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 and

¶17

3 has placed on record the order of appointment dated

¶18

7.8.2017 issued in favour of the petitioner.

¶19

2]The learned counsel for the petitioner submits

¶20

that the petitioner has also received the said order.
However, the petitioner's grievance is that the

¶21

WP 8436/17

¶22

- 2 -

¶23

appointment ought to have been made as per the merit
list. The learned counsel further submits that the other

¶24

candidates, who have been appointed prior to the
petitioner, were much below the petitioner in the merit
list and in the circumstances, the seniority list will
have to be prepared as per the initial merit list and not

¶25

on the basis of the date of issuance of the appointment
orders. The petitioner's grievance is that he was
required to file the petition and only on receipt of
notice of the petition, the respondents have issued the
appointment order on 7.8.2017.

¶26

3]Be that as it may. We are inclined to dispose

¶27

of this petition since the petitioner has now been issued

¶28

the appointment order. However, we keep all the

¶29

contentions in regard to the seniority open and grant

¶30

liberty to the petitioner to submit a detailed

¶31

representation before the respondents / competent

¶32

authority pointing out his right to claim seniority over
and above those persons to whom appointment orders have

¶33

been issued prior to the petitioner in spite of the fact

¶34

that they were below the petitioner in the merit list.
In case the petitioner submits such a representation, the

¶35

WP 8436/17

¶36

competent authority is directed to consider the same and
take appropriate decision on it in accordance with law as
expeditiously as possible, but not later than three
months from the date of receipt of such a representation.
4]With the aforesaid directions and liberty, the
petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶37

 (NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.) (SHANTANU S. KEMKAR, J.)

¶38

ndk/ c248173.doc

Mahesh Daulatrao Patil v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahesh Daulatrao Patil 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

Samir Subhash Rajurkar Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Kalyan Bharatrao Patil and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sanjay Rangrao Dhanwai and Anr. Vs the State of Maharahtra and Ors.

Shri Shivaji Shikshan Prasarak Mandal through Its President N S Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Dayanand Bhikaji Sirsathe Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Laxmikant Sudhakar Kulkarni and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others