In this PIL challenging the appointment of an individual as Rojgar Sevak due to alleged lack of qualifications, the High Court dismissed the petition as a casual filing in absence of sufficient material, specifically the appointment order. Court imposed costs.
The public interest litigation is dismissed with costs.
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 pil 78.21
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 78 OF 2021
Parasram Vyankoba Mane .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri Govind R. Ingole, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mrs. M. A. Deshpande, Addl.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND R. N. LADDHA, JJ. DATE : 23RD JULY, 2021.
FINAL ORDER :
. We have heard Mr. Ingole, the learned advocate for the petitioner. The petitioner is challenging the appointment of the respondent No. 6 as Rojgar Sevak.
2 pil 78.21
years back. Appointment order of the respondent No. 6 is not filed. We asked the learned advocate for the petitioner as to whether the respondent No. 6 is presently working as member of the Gram Panchayat, he answered in the negative.
[R. N. LADDHA, J.] [S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.]
bsb/July 21
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the PIL regarding the non-qualification of the respondent for appointment as Rojgar Sevak deserves to be entertained in absence of material.
Parasram Vyankoba Mane
The State of Maharashtra
S. V. Gangapurwala
R. N. Laddha
As recorded by the court registry
Litigation brought on behalf of the public interest rather than a personal grievance, relaxing the usual rule of locus standi.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
