Dismissed

Prakash Tukaram Vaichal v. Union of India Thr. Sec. Ministry of Personnel and Ors.

Bombay HC6 Apr 2023WP/4338/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of two Writ Petitions filing seeks directions for expediting a pending Central Administrative Tribunal matter and appointment notification to the Union of India. The Court refused to issue specific directions, advised the petitioner to approach the Tribunal directly, and ordered the dismissal of the petitions without costs due to the Tribunal's jurisdiction over the pending

What did the court decide?

Both Writ Petitions were disposed of; no specific directions were issued; no costs awarded.

Prakash Tukaram Vaichal Vs Union of India Thr. Sec… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

(5)-WP-4337 & 4338-23.doc .

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

Digitally signed by BALAJI BALAJIGOVINDRAO GOVINDRAOPANCHAL PANCHAL Date: 2023.04.10 10:32:26 +0530

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.4337 OF 2023 WITH

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.4338 OF 2023

¶6

Prakash Tukaram Vaichal ..Petitioner Versus Union of India & Ors. ..Respondents

¶7

..Respondents

¶8

Mr. Yashodeep Deshmukh i/by Vinod P. Sangvikar, for the Petitioner. Mr. R. R. Shetty a/w Dashrath A. Dube, for the Respondent No.1/UOI. Mrs. R. A. Salunkhe, AGP for the Respondent Nos.4 & 5/State.

¶9

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

¶10

DATE : 6^th APRIL, 2023

¶11

P.C.

¶12

The Writ Petition No.4337 of 2023 is filed seeking directions against the Central Administrative Tribunal to decide the Original Application, whereas the Writ Petition No.4338 of 2023 is filed seeking directions to Union of India to issue notification for appointment of petitioner to IAS Cadre for 2020 list. The said prayer is made in spite of the fact that the Original Application filed by the petitioner before the Central Administrate Tribunal is pending. When the Central Administrative Tribunal is seized with the matter, such a prayer ought not to have been made by the learned advocate in the present petition.

¶13

As far as the prayers made seeking directions against the Central Administrative Tribunal for deciding Original Application expeditiously, the petitioner may make a request to the Central BGP. 1 o f 2

¶14

(5)-WP-4337 & 4338-23.doc .

¶15

Administrative Tribunal for expeditious disposal of the proceedings. We are not aware about the pendency of the matters before the Central Administrative Tribunal. As such, no specific directions are being issued.

¶16

However, if the request is made by the petitioner, naturally the Central Administrative Tribunal would consider the said request as per its board and pendency of the matters.

¶17

Both the petitions as such stand disposed of. No costs.

¶18

[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]

¶19

[ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE]

¶20

2 o f 2

¶21

BGP.

Prakash Tukaram Vaichal v. Union of India Thr. Sec. Ministry of Personnel and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash Tukaram Vaichal v. Union of India Thr. Sec. Ministry of Personnel and Ors.

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

G. N. Mohanty Vs Union of India and 7 Ors.

Clifford John Coelho Vs Central Regional Commissioner and 4 Ors.

Ramdas Mahadeo Khedkar Vs the State of Maharashtra through Govt. Pleader and Ors.

Balaji Bhaurao Sanap Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary School Education and Sports and Anr.

Prakash Tukaram Vaichal Vs Union of India Thr. Sec. Ministry of Personnel and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Ors. Vs Archana Prakash Charate