Disposed

Ajay Vasantrao Munde v. the Maharashtra Public Service Commission through Its Chairman and Ors.

Bombay HC1 Mar 2018PIL/9/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a PIL concerning MPSC selection results. The court ordered the tribunal to decide interim relief applications within two weeks and the main applications within four weeks, independent of the court's interim order.

What did the court decide?

Disposed of PIL; directed tribunal to decide interim applications within 2 weeks and main applications within 4 weeks.

Ajay Vasantrao Munde Vs the Maharashtra Public Service… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

904-PIL-9.2018.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 9 OF 2018 ALONG WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8 OF 2018 IN

¶5

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 9 OF 2018

Ajay Vasantrao Munde

...Petitioner

Vs.

The Maharashtra Public Service Commission through its Chairman and Ors.

¶10

...Respondents

¶11

Mr. Chetan Nagare a/.w Mr. Vijaykumar Dhakane for the Petitioner.

¶12

Mr.N.V. Dalvi for respondent no. 1.

¶13

Mr.C.P. Yadav, AGP for the Respondent nos. 2 and 3 State.

¶14

Mr. Abhijeet Desai a/w Mr. Rajesh Tekale for Intervenor.

¶15

CORAM : SHANTANU KEMKAR & M.S. KARNIK, JJ. DATE : MARCH 01, 2018

¶16

P.C. :

¶17

We have been appraised by the learned counsel for the parties that as many as 17 matters or more have been filed by the various applicants before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal.

¶18

On 17.1.2018 this court has directed that the MPSC shall

1/3

nilegaonkar

904-PIL-9.2018.doc

not finalize the results of the selection till next date of hearing. The said order is still in force.

¶23

In the circumstances, as agreed by the learned counsel for the parties, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this PIL which is relating to service matter with liberty to the applicants of the said Original Applications to file appropriate application for grant of interim relief in the said pending Original Applications. On receipt of the such applications, the tribunal shall make all endeavour to decide the said applications for interim relief as expeditiously as possible but in any case not later than two weeks from the date of appearance of the parties before it. We also observe that the tribunal shall make endeavour to dispose of the Original Application itself within period of four weeks from the date of appearance of the parties.

¶24

Interim order passed by this court shall remain operative till further orders in this regard as may be passed by the tribunal. However, it is made clear that the tribunal shall not be influenced by the interim order dated 17.1.2018 passed by this court and shall be free to decide the application for interim relief as also original applications on their own merits in accordance with law after giving due opportunity of hearing to the parties.

2/3

nilegaonkar

904-PIL-9.2018.doc

With the aforesaid directions, petition is disposed of.

¶29

Parties to appear before the tribunal on 6^th March, 2018 at 11.00 am.

¶30

Civil Application No. 8 of 2018 for intervention is also disposed of with liberty to file the same before the tribunal. The tribunal shall decide the same in accordance with law.

¶31

(M.S. KARNIK, J.)

¶32

(SHANTANU KEMKAR, J.)

¶33

3/3

¶34

nilegaonkar

Ajay Vasantrao Munde v. the Maharashtra Public Service Commission through Its Chairman and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Vasantrao Munde v. the Maharashtra Public Service Commission through Its Chairman and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Maharshtra Veej Grahak Sanghatana, through Its Authorised Signatory, Shri Suhas Raghunath Khandekar Vs State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Department of Energy, Mumbai and Another

Nagari Nakka Saurakshan Manch through Central President Shri. Janardan Gulabrao Moon Vs Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, New Delhi and Others

Karan S/O Vijay Shahu Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Chief Secretary, Mumbai and Others

Aziz Abbas Pathan Vs State of Maharasthra through Secretary and Ors.

Sachin Ratan Shinde and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Taj Ahmad Raja Vs Government of Maharashtra, Planning Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai and Others

Haji Aslam Khan S/O Haji Amiruddin Vs State of Maha. through the Principal Secretary, Ministry of Planning, Mumbai and Others

Rahul Chandrakant Kulkarni Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

The State of Maharashtra Vs M/S. Shriram Transport and Sand Suppliers and Anr.

The State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary Vs Shri. Santosh Bansi Yevale

Suresh Mohanlal Jain and 6 Ors. Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 5 Ors.

Aman Welfare Society and 4 Ors. Vs Deputy Collector (Enc./Rem) and Competent Authority and 4 Ors.

Mahesh Vaswani Vs the State of Maharashtra through Govt. Pleader and Anr.

Mr. Sidram Sayappa Ghugari Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.