Dismissed

Sakhu Maruti Bite v. the State of Maha and Ors.

Bombay HC26 Sept 2019WP/3042/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed the writ petition of a petitioner who sought appointment as a Class-III or IV post nominee of a freedom fighter. The Bench upheld the Administrative Tribunal's finding that no appointment was mandated by the Government Resolution, noting the utility of the certificate was lost due to processing delays not attributable to the state at this stage.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sakhu Maruti Bite Vs the State of Maha and Ors. — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

wp3042-2012.doc

¶2

- 1 -

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.3042 OF 2012

Sakhu Maruti Bite

PETITIONER

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra and others

¶10

RESPONDENTS

¶11

Mr. D.R. Shelke, Advocate with Smt. S.D. Shelke, Advocate for the petitioner Mrs. M.A. Deshpande, A.G.P. for the respondents/State

¶12

CORAM: PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, CJ & R.G. AVACHAT, J. DATE: 26.09.2019

¶13

PER COURT :

¶14

1] Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶15

2] Armed with a certificate dated 16^th July, 2010 issued by the

¶16

Collector, Beed certifying that the petitioner was the nominee of a freedom

¶17

fighter, she relied upon a Government Resolution dated 4^th September,

¶18

1991 and wanted appointment to either a Class-III or a Class-IV post.

¶19

wp3042-2012.doc

¶20

- 2 -

¶21

None being offered any appointment, she filed Original Application No.234/2011 which has been dismissed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal vide impugned order dated 3^rd May, 2011.

¶22

3] The Government Resolution relied upon exempts nominees of freedom fighters to be registered with Employment Exchange and are entitled to relaxation in educational qualifications and age upto five years. Noting as aforesaid, the Tribunal has held that the petitioner was under a misconception that as per the Government Resolution, appointment had to be given to a nominee of a freedom fighter.

¶23

4] We agree with the view taken by the Tribunal because the language of the Government Resolution is clear. It is, as recorded by the Tribunal.

¶24

5] The counsel for the petitioner makes a grievance that she had applied for the nominee certificate on 22^nd September, 1999 but it was issued one on 16^th July, 2010, by which date the petitioner had crossed the age of eligibility even giving benefit of five years age relaxation.

¶25

6] Counsel for the petitioner questions what is the utility of a

¶26

wp3042-2012.doc

¶27

certificate pursuant to which no benefit can be availed of.

¶28

7] The cry of anguish may be justified but nothing can be done at

¶29

this stage. The petitioner ought to have filed a petition when her application dated 22^nd September, 1999 was not being processed with reasonable despatch.

¶30

8] The Writ Petition is dismissed.

¶31

9] No costs.

¶32

(R.G. AVACHAT, J.) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶33

npj/wp3042-2012.doc

Sakhu Maruti Bite v. the State of Maha and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sakhu Maruti Bite v. the State of Maha and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandrakant Prabhuappa Dhanshette Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Vasudeo Murlidhar Parley Vs the State of Mah

Vasudeo Murlidhar Parley Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Federation of All Lminority Educational Organization (Fame) Thr Zonal Chairman Vs the Union of India Thr Principal Secretary and Ors.

Digambar Rajaram Parodwad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shivkumar Vitthal Gulve and Anr. Vs the State of Maharshtra and Ors.