Dismissed

Mallikarjun Dharyappa Khot v. the Superintedent of Police Sangli and Anr.

Bombay HC6 Feb 2023WP/3561/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the preference granted to another candidate over the petitioner in a selection process. The court held that under the 2008 Government Resolution active at the time, the candidate with better qualifications was correctly preferred, and the Tribunal did not commit any error. The petition was dismissed.

What the court decided

AI extract

Mallikarjun Dharyappa Khot Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

2-WP.3561.2022

¶2

jvs

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION

¶4

SALUNKE J V

¶5

Digitally signed by SALUNKE J V Date: 2023.02.07 18:23:45 +0530

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 3561 OF 2022

¶7

Mallikarjun Dharyappa Khot } Petitioner Versus The Superintendent of Police, } Sangli & Anr. } Respondents

¶8

Mr. Amitkumar D. Sale for the petitioner.

¶9

Mr. M. M. Pabale, AGP for State.

¶10

CORAM: S. V. GANGAPURWALA, Act.CJ.& SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

¶11

DATE: FEBRUARY 6, 2023

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶14

2. The petitioner approached the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai (hereafter “the Tribunal”, for short) contending that the petitioner and the present respondent no. 2 possess the same marks. The respondent no. 2 is preferred on the ground that he had better qualification. Reliance was placed by the authorities and the Tribunal on the Government Resolution dated 27^th June 2008. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, as per the Government Resolution dated 5^th October 2015, a person who is senior in age has to be preferred. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner had Bachelor of Arts (BA) qualification in the year 2014. The same is also required to be considered.

¶15

3. It is not disputed by the petitioner that the petitioner and respondent no. 2 secured the same marks. On the day the

¶16

¶17

2-WP.3561.2022

¶18

advertisement was issued, the Government Resolution of the year 2008 was in force and applicable. As per the said Government Resolution, if same marks are obtained by two candidates, then, the one who has better qualification is required to be preferred. Admittedly, the petitioner did not possess the BA qualification upto 29^th April 2014, i.e., the date of advertisement and respondent no. 2 possessed BA qualification. In the application also, the petitioner has showed his qualification as H.S.C. 4. In light of the above, the Tribunal has not committed any error in passing the impugned order. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶19

(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.)

¶20

(ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶21

Mallikarjun Dharyappa Khot v. the Superintedent of Police Sangli and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Mallikarjun Dharyappa Khot v. the Superintedent of Police Sangli and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vishal Kashinath Mestri and 409 Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and 10 Ors.

Adhal Pandurang Soma and 60 Ors. Vs the Municipal Commissioner

Mr. Prakash Ganpat Sawant Vs the Minister for Rural Development State of Maharashtra

R. Gopalkrishnan and 2 Ors. Vs Registrar of Trade Unions and 3 Ors.

Dnyandev Ambadas Adhav Vs the Uniono of India and 7 Ors.

Pune District Suraksha Rakshak and General Kamgar Union Thr Secretary Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr the Deputy Secretary and Anr.