Sanjay Krishnaji Bhokardole v. The State Of Maharashtra Thr The Secretary Dept. Of Information And Public Relation And ORS

J R Mane 1 44-wp8368-23.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8368 OF 2023 Sanjay Krishnaji Bhokardole ...

Petitioner.

V/S.

The State Of Maharashtra Thr The Secretary Dept. Of Information And Public Relation And Ors ...

Respondents.

.......

Mr. Vishal Navate i/b. Tejesh Dande & Asso. for the Petitioners. Mr. M.M. Pabale AGP Respondent Nos.1 & 2.

.......

CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR, AND MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ.

DATE : 19 December 2023.

JYOTI RAJESH MANE P.C. :

by JYOTI RAJESH MANE Date:

2023.12.22 18:47:20 +0530 The Petitioner has sought to set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dated 31 July 2015, by filing this petition on 8 February 2022. The Petitioner was Applicant before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No.4/2011. He filed this Original Application making a grievance regarding his non-selection pursuant to the Advertisement issued by Respondent No.2 on 11 February

J R Mane 2 44-wp8368-23.doc 2008 for the Post of District Information Officer. The counsel informs that thereafter Respondent No.3 to 6 were appointed some time in the year 2009. In this state of affairs the aspect of delay assumes importance.

The learned counsel for the Petitioner sought to contend that the Petitioner did not have financial means and wanted to engage an advocate through legal aid. There were difficulties in the same therefore, there was a delay. It is not possible to accept this reason to overlook the delay, more particularly, since in the petitions filed by the private Respondents, the Petitioner is party there and was aware of the proceedings.

The rights have been created in favour of the Respondents. The Petitioner's non-selection is in respect of Advertisement dated 11 February 2008 that is prior to almost 16 years. The Petitioner while affirming the Petition has given his age as 50 years. In these circumstances we are not inclined to examine the challenge in writ jurisdiction. Writ Petition is accordingly rejected. (MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.) (NITIN JAMDAR, J.)