Partly allowed

Prakash Shankar Dhembare v. Union of India through the Secretayr, Ministry of Home Affairs, Central Indu. Security Force and or

Bombay HC14 Dec 2018WP/2263/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition filed by a petitioner whose provisional appointment was withdrawn due to alleged suppression of facts. The High Court directed the appointing authority to reconsider the petitioner's case for appointment in light of the guidelines laid down in the Apex Court judgment of Avtar Singh.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the appointing authority to reconsider the petitioner's case for appointment in light of the guidelines laid down in the Apex Court judgment of Avtar Singh.

Prakash Shankar Dhembare Vs Union of India through the… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

1 caw-2560.18.docx

¶2

pmw

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.2263 OF 2016 WITH

¶5

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2560 OF 2018

¶6

Prakash Shankar Dhembare … Petitioner Vs.

¶7

Union of India and Ors. … Respondents

¶8

Mr. Vicky A. Nagrani for the Applicant. Ms. Anjali Helekar a/w Mr. Arun Kumar Roy for the Respondents.

¶9

CORAM : A.S.OKA AND

¶10

SANDEEP K. SHINDE, JJ.

¶11

DATE : 14^th DECEMBER 2018.

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

1 The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and Ors.¹ and Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India² . He submitted that instead of the substantive reliefs claimed in the petition, he is seeking a limited relief in terms of the second decision of the Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh. He submits that the concerned authorities which took decision to terminate the employment of the petitioner should be directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner in the light of the guidelines laid down in the first case of Avtar Singh.

¶14

1 (2016) 8 SCC 471

¶15

2 (2018) 1 SCC 268

¶16

1 of 3

¶17

2 caw-2560.18.docx

¶18

2 We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respondents who has opposed the prayers.

¶19

3 Perusal of the second judgment in the case of Avtar Singh shows that employment of the appellant before the Apex Court was terminated way back in the year 1994 in which there was a suppression of his involvement in a criminal case. The Apex Court in the light of the guidelines laid down in the first judgment in the case of Avtar Singh directed the appointing authority to reconsider the case of the appellant afresh. Coming to the facts of the present case, by the communication dated 13^th August 2012, the petitioner was informed that on account of suppression of facts in the application, the provisional offer of appointment issued to him was withdrawn and cancelled. There is also a challenge to the communication dated 21^st November 2014 by which the petitioner was informed that he was found to be unsuitable for appointment in CISF.

¶20

4 We are not entering into the question whether the guidelines laid down in the first case of Avtar Singh will apply to the case of the petitioner. However, in terms of the second case of Avtar Singh, the petitioner wants reconsideration of the decision taken by the appointing authority. This prayer deserve to be granted.

¶21

5 Accordingly, we pass the following order :-

2 of 3

3 caw-2560.18.docx

ORDER

(i) We direct the appointing authority of the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner for appointment in the light of the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India [(2016) 8 SCC 471];

¶26

(ii) We make it clear that we have made no adjudication on the question whether the said guidelines will be applicable to the case of the petitioner;

¶27

(iii) The petition is disposed of on above terms;

¶28

(iv) It will be open for the petitioner to make a representation to the appointing authority on the basis of the aforesaid decisions of the Apex Court;

¶29

(v) Rule is partly made absolute accordingly;

¶30

(vi) Civil Application No.2560 of 2018 does not survive and the same is disposed of.

¶31

(SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J.)

¶32

(A.S.OKA, J.)

¶33

3 of 3

Prakash Shankar Dhembare v. Union of India through the Secretayr, Ministry of Home Affairs, Central Indu. Security Force and or

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash Shankar Dhembare v. Union of India through the Secretayr, Ministry of Home Affairs, Central Indu. Security Force and or

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sachin S.Malvankar Vs Union of India and Ors.

Alka M. Joshi Vs Union of India and Anr.

Smt. Anita Sunil Khairaliya Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Suresh Narayan Jagdale and 3 Ors. Vs the Collector,Office of Mumbai Suburban District and Anr.

Sheila Chrisitian Vs Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai and 3 Ors.

Vasant Gopalrao Lade Vs Shri. Sandip Golait, Vice Chairman, Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee and Ors.