Dismissed

Union of India through the Administrator and Ors. v. Patel Meenaben Amrutlal and Ors.

Bombay HC22 Jun 2022WP/2462/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Composite order dismissing a writ petition challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal's direction to review selections affected by an illegal domicile award, agreeing with the petitioner's submission based on Supreme Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

CTB's directions to review selections are not disturbed and the writ petition stands dismissed.

Union of India through the Administrator and Ors. Vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

14.wp.2462-19

¶2

PMB

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

Digitally signed by PRADNYA PRADNYA MAKARAND MAKARAND BHOGALE BHOGALE Date: 2022.06.24 11:07:03 +0530

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 2462 OF 2019

¶6

Union of India through the Administrator and ors. .. Petitioners

¶7

vs.

¶8

Patel Meenaben Amrutlal and ors. .. Respondents

¶9

WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3759 OF 2022

¶10

¶11

WRIT PETITION NO. 2462 OF 2019

¶12

Dr. Dipa Lalitchandra Joshi and ors. .. Applicants IN THE MATTER BETWEEN Union of India and ors. .. Petitioners

¶13

vs. Patel Meenaben Amrutlal and ors. .. Respondents

¶14

Mr. Hiten S. Venegaonkar for petitioners.

¶15

Dr. Suresh T. Mane for respondent nos. 8 to 25 and 53 to 56 in WP/2462/2019.

¶16

Mr. Rahul Walis for respondent in WP/2462/2019 and for respondent nos. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7 in IA/3759/2022.

¶17

Mr. Vicky A. Nagrani for applicants in IA/3759/2022.

¶18

Mr. Shakoor Hanif Lakhani, LDC, Directorate of Education, Daman present.

¶19

CORAM : DIPANKAR DATTA, CJ &

¶20

M. S. KARNIK, J.

¶21

DATE : JUNE 22, 2022.

14.wp.2462-19

P.C. :

The Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai by its order dated December 21, 2018 dismissed several original applications. The concluding paragraph of such order reads as follows: -

¶26

“92. However, respondents are additionally directed to review their selections and the select list prepared by them based on the illegal and unconstitutional award of 20 marks for domicile and then to arrive at a fresh selection list and to decide on the eligibility of candidates and their selection on that basis. For this purpose, three months time is granted to respondents to prepare a fresh selection list in respect of the advertisements impugned in these batch of cases. Further, until this Selection List is declared as above, the applicants who are presently in service by virtue of interim orders shall not be disengaged by respondents.”

¶27

In this writ petition, the directions contained in paragraph 92 have been subjected to challenge by the Administrator, Union Territory of Daman & Diu and Dadra & Nagar Haveli.

¶28

Today, Mr. Venegaonkar, learned advocate for the Administrator, fairly submits that in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court reported in (2002) 6 SCC 562 ( Kailash Chand Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan and others ) and (2019) 14 SCC 179 ( State of Rajasthan vs. Nemi Chand Mahela and others ), the directions given by the Tribunal

¶29

¶30

14.wp.2462-19

¶31

in paragraph 92 are unexceptionable. He has, therefore, invited us not to interfere with such directions.

¶32

The fair submission of Mr. Venegaonkar is appreciated. The contents of paragraph 92 of the impugned order are not disturbed and the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. 5. In view of the aforesaid order, nothing survives for decision in the interim application and the same stands disposed of. No costs.

¶33

(M. S. KARNIK, J.)

¶34

(CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶35

Union of India through the Administrator and Ors. v. Patel Meenaben Amrutlal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India through the Administrator and Ors. v. Patel Meenaben Amrutlal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Krishna B.Narkar and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

The Hyder-E-Ally Manufacturing and Pressing Factory Private Limited. and Anr. Vs Grocery Markerts and Shops Board for Greater Mumbai and 3 Ors.

The Hyder-E-Ally Manufacturing and Pressing Factory Private Limited. and Anr. Vs Grocery Markerts and Shops Board for Greater Mumbai and 3 Ors.

Sagar Lookouts vs Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority and 2 Others

Yogesh Vasudeorao Sawalakhe and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Principal Secretary General Administration Dept. and Ors.

Urvashiben Ratilal Solanki D/O Ratilal Solanki and Ors. Vs Union of India Thru the Administrator, Union Territory of Diu and Daman and Ors.