Dismissed

Sarvade Anuja Dhondiram v. State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC24 Apr 2023WP/553/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay disposed of a writ petition filed by a petitioner seeking a vacant Scheduled Caste category post of Assistant Law Officer. The court held that the Advertisement was for contract posts which expired, the Board of Directors approved only one provisional post which was filled, and thus no order could be passed in favour of the petitioner.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sarvade Anuja Dhondiram Vs State of Maharashtra and 2… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

29-WP-553-2020

¶2

Pdp

¶3

PRAVIN DASHARATH PANDIT

¶4

Digitally signed by PRAVIN DASHARATH PANDIT Date: 2023.04.24 20:27:59 +0530

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 553 OF 2020

¶7

Sarvade Anuja Dhondiram .. Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents

¶10

Mr. Atul Damle, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Jagdish G. Aradwad (Reddy) a/w Ms. Ashwini B. Jadhav for petitioner. Mr. Sukanta Karmakar, AGP for respondent no.1/State. Mr. Abhijeet Joshi a/w Ms. Varsha Sawant for respondent nos.2 and 3.

¶11

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

¶12

DATE: APRIL 24, 2023

¶13

P.C.:

¶14

1. Mr. Damle, learned senior advocate for the petitioner submits the petitioner, pursuant to the Advertisement No.3 of 2018, applied for the post of Assistant Law Officer from Scheduled Caste category. As per the advertisement, there were total two vacancies. One was meant for general category and another for Scheduled Caste category. The post for general category is filled in but the respondent has not filled in the post for Scheduled Caste category. The petitioner was standing at Sr. No. 1 from Scheduled Caste category. 2. Mr. Joshi, learned advocate for the respondent nos.2 and 3 submits that the advertisement was issued in the year 2018 for filling in the post of Assistant Law Officer on contract basis. The advertisement itself clarified that the vacancy for

¶15

¶16

29-WP-553-2020

¶17

Scheduled Caste category is shown subject to approval by the Board of Director. The learned counsel submits that there was only one permanent post and one temporary post. One temporary post was filled in. The provisional post is not approved by the Board of Director.

¶18

3. We have considered the submissions.

¶19

4. As it is the advertisement in question was for appointment of Assistant Law Officer on contract basis. The period of contract was for two years. The said period has also come to an end. Moreover, affidavit has been filed by the respondent nos.2 and 3 stating that there was only one post available and the same has been filled in. The Board of Director has not approved the second post.

¶20

5. In light of that, no order can be passed in favour of the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶21

(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶22

Sarvade Anuja Dhondiram v. State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sarvade Anuja Dhondiram v. State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amin Abdul Kadar Navlekar Vs Gautam Rajaram Pawar and 4 Ors.

Gope Laxmichand Badlani Vs Oriental Bank of Commerce

Shri. Shankar Narayan Sandbhor Vs the State of Maharashtra Thru the Addl. Chief Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept. and Anr.

Union of India through Deputy Secretary and Ors. Vs Pushpa a Dethe W/O Shri.Ashok R Dethe

Parasu Giddappa Gadivadar Vs State of Maharashtra Thr Dept for Water Supply and Sanitation and Ors.

Pravin Shamrao Ghare Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Principal Secretary Home Dept and Ors.