Disposed

Raosaheb Mango Patil v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC3 Jan 2022WP/2370/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed regarding non-promotion of a low vision category employee. Court directed Chief Executive Officer to examine eligibility of candidates above petitioner and decide promotion claim within four months.

What did the court decide?

Directed Chief Executive Officer to examine eligibility of candidates above petitioner and dispose of promotion claim within four months of application.

1]Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is working as an Assistant Teacher and possesses qualification of B.A. B.Ed. The petitioner is qualified for the promotional post of Extension Officer from physically disabled category. The petitioner belongs to low vision category.

2]Learned Advocate for the petitioner further submits that still three posts of Extension Officers from Physically Disabled Category are vacant. Though the petitioner is shown at serial No.31 in the list, in fact except one, all the candidates above the petitioner, do not possess

B.Ed. qualification and they are not eligible. This aspect is not considered by the respondents. As there are three vacant posts, the petitioner would be entitled for promotion to the post of Extension Officer.

3]Mr.Sonwane, learned Advocate for respondent nos.2 and 3 submits that the petitioner is at serial no.31. There are only 7 posts of Extension Officers reserved for physically disabled category [low vision category]. All 7 posts are filled in. The petitioner has not challenged seniority list.

4]The seniority list placed on record shows that the petitioner is from low vision category and is at serial no.31. Already some persons are working as Kendra Pramukh and / or Extension Officer. We do not find the details as to the number of posts reserved for physically disabled [low vision] of Extension Officer and / or Kendra Pramukh. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, two persons shown to be occupying the post of Kendra Pramukhs have retired.

5]The petitioner at no point of time has raised objection about the persons above him in the seniority list not possessing requisite qualification for the post of Extension Officer and / or Kendra Pramukh.

6]In the light of that, the petitioner may raise objection with the Chief Executive Officer in that regard. The Chief Executive Officer shall consider the objection raised by the petitioner and take decision with regard to the claim of the petitioner for the post of Kendra Pramukhs / Extension Officer, on its own merits, in accordance with law and Rules, preferably within four [4] months from the date of application made by the petitioner.

Raosaheb Mango Patil v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raosaheb Mango Patil 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

Bharatbhushan Sonajirao Kshirsagar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Madhavrao Rupchand Deoraj Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shaikh Salim Shaikh Abbas and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Kundansing Badusing Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Satish Rajdhar Patil Vs the Union of India and Another

Vasudev Jagannath Agrawal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.