The Supreme加盖 Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal's decision on the petitioner's appointment as Kotwal. The writ was rejected as no mathematical case for interference was made out.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1 910.WP3730.19.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.3730/2019
Smt. Kalpana Vishwasrao Khandare vs. The State of Maharashtra & ors.
.............................................................................................................................................. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders
............................................................................................................................................ Shri. C. A. Babrekar, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri. A. M. Deshpande, Additional Government Pleader for respondent Nos. 1 to 4.
CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE & VINAY JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 18th September, 2019
The petitioner was appointed on the post of Kotwal by an order dated 16-05-2013. This appointment was cancelled on 26-02-2014 after conducting an enquiry. However, the petitioner was not provided an opportunity before cancellation. Hence, the matter was remanded back in the earlier round of litigation. Thereafter, petitioner has provided an opportunity and ultimately the decision has been taken.
The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal has recorded reasons in paragraph – 7 of the Judgment in Original Application No.135 of 2016 decided on 27-11-2018, which reads thus -
“It appears that respondent no.5 correctly answered 25 questions and therefore she got 50 marks. It seems that no marks are allotted to the applicant or
2 910.WP3730.19.odt
respondent no.5 to the answers where there was over writing or erasing. It is pertinent to note that as per the directions given by the Tribunal, the answer sheets were re-examined and marks are allotted, except this ground there is no other challenge to the process. Now it is contention of the applicant that the procedure followed by respondent no.4 is illegal and his decision and allotment of marks after revaluation is wrong. In my opinion if such contentions are allowed to be raised, then there would be no end and finality to the examination process. There is a presumption that the public officers discharge their functions honestly as per the rules and unless it is shown that there was some foul play or malice it is not permissible to interfere. In the present case the respondent no.4 who reexamined the answer papers was not in inimical terms with the applicant, similarly respondent no.4 had no reason to show favour to respondent no.5. In the absence of such allegations and evidence, I do not see any merit in the contention to interfere in this matter. Hence, I hold that the decision taken by respondent no.4 is correct and proper and no interference is required.”
After going through the decision, we do not
find that any case is made out for interference.
Writ Petition is therefore, dismissed.
JUDGE
JUDGE
RGurnule
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition should be allowed or dismissed.
Whether the petitioner demonstrated a case for judicial interference into the decision of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal.
Smt. Kalpana Vishwasrao Khandare
The State of Maharashtra
R.K. Deshpande
Vinay Joshi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court