Tejas Bhausheb Avhad v. the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation Bmc

Bombay HC11 Nov 2025WP/4119/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition disposed of as withdrawn on instructions; recruitment to post of Sub-Engineer (Civil), Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC); candidature not considered for false statement in application form claiming to have passed Marathi language examination; petitioner at serial no. 15 in merit list of 226 successful candidates; liberty to submit request letter seeking reconsideration; no fresh cause of action created; Bombay High Court; Ghuge & Bhobe, JJ.; 11 November 2025.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of as withdrawn on instructions; liberty to the Petitioner to submit a request letter to the Municipal Corporation seeking reconsideration, which the Corporation may consider; filing of such letter or a decision thereon shall not create a fresh cause of action. ¶¶23

Tejas Bhausheb Avhad vs the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation Bmc — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petitioner's candidature for the post of Sub-Engineer (Civil), despite his standing at serial no. 15 in the merit list of 226 successful candidates, could be considered notwithstanding the false statement in his application form that he had passed the Marathi language examination.

¶¶14

Ratio / Principle

The Petition is disposed of as withdrawn, on instructions, the Petitioner being present in Court and desiring to withdraw.

¶¶23

Key takeaways

If the Petitioner submits a request letter, the Municipal Corporation may consider the same.ratio¶¶24
The filing of such a request letter, or a decision thereon, shall not create a fresh cause of action.obiter¶¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction), Writ Petition No. 4119 of 2025, decided 11 November 2025 (Ravindra V. Ghuge & Ashwin D. Bhobe, JJ.) — Tejas Bhausaheb Avhad v. The Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) and Another. The Petitioner, who applied for the post of Sub-Engineer (Civil) and stands at serial no. 15 in the merit list of 226 successful candidates, had his candidature not considered because he made a false statement in the application form claiming that he had passed the Marathi language examination; the Municipal Corporation submitted that had he disclosed the truth his application form itself would have been rejected. On instructions, with the Petitioner present in Court, he desired to withdraw the petition intending to submit a request letter to the Corporation seeking reconsideration. Held: petition disposed of as withdrawn; if a request letter is submitted, the Municipal Corporation may consider it; the filing of such a letter or a decision thereon shall not create a fresh cause of action.

¶1

TRUPTI SADANAND BAMNE Digitally signed by TRUPTI SADANAND BAMNE Date: 2025.11.13 12:54:40 +0530

¶2

18-wp-4119-2025.odt

¶3

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

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 4119 OF 2025

¶5

Tejas Bhausaheb Avhad … Petitioner versus The Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) and Another … Respondents

¶6

Mr.Nikhil Wadikar with Mr.Rushikesh Desai i/b. Mr.Nandu Pawar for the Petitioner.

¶7

Ms.Rupali Adhate with Mr.Pratik Garde i/b. Ms.Komal Punjabi for the the Respondent – Municipal Corporation.

¶8

Mrs. Yogita Pimple, Head Clerk, (City Engineer) Department present in the Court.

¶9

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & ASHWIN D. BHOBE, JJ.

¶10

DATE : NOVEMBER 11, 2025

¶11

P.C:

¶12

The Petitioner, who stands at serial no. 15 in the merit list, had

¶13

applied for the post of Sub-Engineer (Civil). His candidature was not

¶14

considered as he had made a false statement in the application form

¶15

claiming that he had passed the Marathi language examination.

¶16

The learned Advocate for the Municipal Corporation submits

¶17

that the Petitioner furnished false information in the application form only

...1

Trupti

18-wp-4119-2025.odt

to facilitate the clearance of his form and the consideration of his candidature. Had he mentioned that he has not passed the Marathi language examination, his application form itself would have got rejected.

¶22

The learned Advocate for the Petitioner, upon taking instructions from the Petitioner who is present in Court, submits that the Petitioner desires to withdraw this Petition, as he intends to submit a request letter to the Municipal Corporation seeking reconsideration of his case, keeping in view that he stands at serial no. 15 in the merit list of 226 successful candidates.

¶23

In view of the above, this Petition is disposed off as withdrawn, on instructions.

¶24

If the Petitioner submits a request letter, the Municipal Corporation may consider the same .

¶25

Needless to state, the filing of such a request letter or a decision thereon, shall not create a fresh cause of action.

¶26

(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

¶27

...2

¶28

Trupti

Tejas Bhausheb Avhad v. the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation Bmc

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tejas Bhausheb Avhad v. the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation Bmc

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Zaverben Tulsidas Rukhana vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Raj Garden Co. Operative Housing Society Ltd. vs Municipal Corporation of Greaer Mumbai

Babu Michael vs the Municipal Commissioner Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Farhat Iqbal Abdul Rashid Ansari vs Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai

Shweta Arun Sathe vs the Bombay Municipal Corporation

Bhisbmanarayan S Yadav vs State of Maharashtra