Disposed

Apoorva Vinayak Phadake v. Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade and Ors.

Bombay HC17 Jan 2024WP/13011/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged exclusion of pharmacy discipline candidates in recruitment to Examiner of Patents & Designs Group-A. As the recruitment had progressed to its second stage, the Court declined the prayed reliefs and permitted a representation to Respondent No.1 for decision within eight weeks, keeping all contentions open.

What the court decided

AI extract

Apoorva Vinayak Phadake Vs Department for Promotion of… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

9-WP-13011-2023.DOC

¶2

Ashvini Narwade

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDITION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.13011 OF 2023

¶5

Ms. Apoorva V. Phadke

¶6

… Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Department for Promotion of Industry & Internal …Respondents Trade, New Delhi & Ors.

¶9

Mr. Sourabh Ganpatye for the Petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Ashish Mehta a/w. Ms. Aarya More, Mr. Bhushan Walunj for Respondent Nos.1, 2 & 4.

¶11

Mr. Rui Rodrigues for Respondent No.5.

¶12

ASHVINI BAPPASAHEB KAKDE

¶13

Digitally signed by ASHVINI BAPPASAHEB KAKDE Date: 2024.01.18 17:50:53 +0530

¶14

P.C.

¶15

_______________________ CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI & FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ. DATED: 17 JANUARY, 2024

¶16

We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Considering the prayers made in the Writ Petition, it appears that the recruitment process has progressed further and is at the second stage. In this view of the matter, it would not be possible for this Court to grant the reliefs as prayed for.

¶17

However, in so far as the grievance of the Petitioner in regard to the exclusion of the candidates of pharmacy discipline is concerned, we permit the Petitioner to make a representation to the appropriate authority (Respondent No.1), in so far as the entitlement being sought by the Petitioner in the recruitment to the post of ‘Examiner of Patents & Designs Group-A (Gazetted)’. If such representation is made, Respondent No.1 shall consider the same in accordance with law and communicate its decision to the Petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the representation.

¶18

Page 1 of 2 17 January, 2024

¶19

9-WP-13011-2023.DOC

¶20

All contentions of the Petitioners in that regard are expressly kept open inclusive of all contentions as raised in the present Petition, in the event a need arises to assail any future recruitment process.

¶21

Disposed of in the above terms. No costs.

¶22

(FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J.)

¶23

(G. S. KULKARNI, J.)

¶24

Page 2 of 2 17 January, 2024

Apoorva Vinayak Phadake v. Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Apoorva Vinayak Phadake v. Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bank of Mahrashtra Vs the Directorate of Revenue Interlligence

Sachin Shivaji Thombare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Anmol Singh Sethi Vs Union of India Thr Secretary and Ors.

Bnc Power Projects Ltd. and Anr. Vs Union of India through Secretary

Medinfini Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Thr Its Director Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Ld Minister for Food and Drugs and Anr.

Triveda Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Throu. Its Authorised Partner Vs the State of Maharashtra Throu. Govt Pleader Bombay and Anr.