Disposed

The Secretary Maharashtra Public Sevice Commission v. Sandeepkumar S. Nalavade

Bombay HC30 Jul 2021WP/199/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the respondent was not disqualified for height deficiency as remeasurement showed he stands 165.2 cm. The court disposed of the writ petition with liberty to appear for a physical test and directions for regularization of subsequent selection steps.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed; liberty granted to appear for physical test; direction to State to offer appointment on recommendation or give reasons for non-recommendation.

The Secretary Maharashtra Public Sevice… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

11-WP.199.2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 199 OF 2020

¶4

The Secretary, Maharashtra } Public Service Commission } Petitioner Versus Shri.Sandeepkumar S. } Nalavade } Respondent

¶5

Mr.S.R.Ganbavale for the petitioner.

¶6

Mr.Gaurav Bandiwadekar i/b. Mr.Bhushan A. Bandiwadekar for the respondent.

¶7

CORAM :- DIPANKAR DATTA, CJ & G. S. KULKARNI, J.

¶8

DATE :- JULY 30, 2021

¶9

PC :-

¶10

1. Pursuant to our order dated 13^th July 2021, the height of the respondent has been remeasured. On such remeasurement, the respondent has been found to stand 165.2 cm. tall. In view thereof, we hold that the respondent could not have been disqualified for consideration of his candidature for appointment on the post of Sub-Inspector of Police on the ground of deficiency in the criteria relating to height.

¶11

2. However, Mr.S.R.Ganbavale, learned advocate for the petitioners has placed before us a communication dated 28^th July 2021 of the Secretary, Maharashtra Public Service

Page 1 of 3

J.V.Salunke,PS

11-WP.199.2020

Commission informing the respondent that he is required to now present himself for a physical test and that further procedure would be undertaken to consider his candidature for the said appointment. The communication dated 28^th July 2021 is taken on record.

¶16

3. We grant liberty to the respondent to appear for the physical test as and when he is duly notified. We are informed by Mr.S.R.Ganbavale that the procedure for selection requires the respondent to succeed in the physical test, whereupon the marks obtained by him in the written examination as well as the interview would be consolidated; and upon such consolidation, if it is found that the respondent has secured marks more than the last recommended candidate for appointment on the post of Sub-Inspector of Police, the Commission shall proceed to recommend the respondent’s name for appointment to the State of Maharashtra.

¶17

4. The statement of Mr.S.R.Ganbavale is accepted. We have no doubt in our mind that depending upon the result of the physical test, further steps to complete the selection process shall be taken as recorded above.

¶18

5. Needless to observe that if a recommendation for the respondent’s appointment is received, the State Government shall waste no time to offer appointment to him. However, if the respondent does not merit a recommendation for appointment on any score, a written intimation containing the reason(s) therefor shall be sent to the respondent by the petitioners.

Page 2 of 3

J.V.Salunke,PS

11-WP.199.2020

6. The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid directions. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶23

Digitally signed by SALUNKE SALUNKE J V J V Date: 2021.08.02 18:36:04 +0530

¶24

(G. S. KULKARNI, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶25

Page 3 of 3

¶26

J.V.Salunke,PS

The Secretary Maharashtra Public Sevice Commission v. Sandeepkumar S. Nalavade

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Secretary Maharashtra Public Sevice Commission v. Sandeepkumar S. Nalavade

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Larsen and Toubro Ltd. Vs the Union of India and 2 Ors.

Shri. Tukaram Rajba Phavade Vs the Regional Dairy Development Officer, Pune Region and Anr.

Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

The Secretary Maharashtra Public Sevice Commission Vs Sandeepkumar S. Nalavade

Ms. Tasneem Shakir Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Gp and Ors.

Chaitali Popatrao Pachpute Vs Maharashtra Public Services Commission and Anr.