Dismissed

Mahesh Ganapat Chaudhari v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC28 Jun 2021WP/5493/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the deletion of his name from a 2016 select list for the post of Mukadam. The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that mere selection does not confer a right to appointment, especially after a long lapse of time.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as devoid of merits; prayer for decision of pending representation refused.

Mahesh Ganapat Chaudhari Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

25-WP-5493-2020.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

25 WRIT PETITION NO.5493 OF 2020

¶5

MAHESH GANAPAT CHAUDHARI
VERSUS

¶6

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶7

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Andhale Sandip R
AGP for Respondents/State: Mr. S. G. Salgare
Advocate for Respondent No.4: Mr. Giri Umakant

¶8

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE &
 AVINASH G. GHAROTE, JJ.

¶9

DATE : 28th June, 2021

¶10

P. C.:

¶11

1. The petitioner prays that the respondents should decide

¶12

his pending representation dated 23.07.2018 addressed to the District

¶13

Collector, Jalgaon.

¶14

2.We have heard the learned advocate for the petitioner
and have perused the petition paper book with his assistance. His
claim is that his name is entered in the select list of 2016 which
indicates that he is in the select list for the post of Mukadam. It is his
further grievance that his name is thereafter deleted from the select
list.

¶15

¶16

25-WP-5493-2020.odt

¶17

3.It is trite law that merely because a person is selected,
would not give him a right to claim an appointment on the said post.
Moreover, the select list is of 2016. After a passage of five years, we
do not find any purpose in accepting the prayer of the petitioner for
the reasons that mere selection does not give him a right to
appointment and that too on the basis of a select list which dates back
to 2016.

¶18

4. In view of the above, this petition, being devoid of merits is, therefore, dismissed.

¶19

( AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)

¶20

(RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

¶21

Sameer

Mahesh Ganapat Chaudhari v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahesh Ganapat Chaudhari v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

Hanumant Uttamrao Jadhav and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Somnath Vishnupant Thone and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Khandappa Kalappa Kantekure and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sachin Ramdas Wagh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

The Exe. Director, Tapi Pathbandhare Vikas Mahamandal, Jalgaon and Others Vs Ravindrasing Bhagwansing Deshmukh

The Exe. Director, Tapi Pathbandhare Vikas Mahamandal, Jalgaon and Others Vs Virendrasing Yogendrasing Deshmukh