← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/5298/2023disposed off

Abaso Dattatraya Nazirkar And ANR v. State Of Maha. Thr. Sec. Home Dept. And ORS

2023-04-20Hon'Ble The Acting Chief Justice,Hon'Ble Shri Justice Sandeep V. Marne2 pages

K 1/2 15 wp 5298.23 as.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5298 OF 2023 Abaso Dattatraya Nazirkar and Anr.

.....Petitioners V/s.

State of Maharashtra, thr. Sec.

Home Dept. And Ors.

.....Respondents Mr. Sandeep Dere for the Petitioners.

Mr. B.V. Samant, AGP for the Respondents-State. Mr. S.C. Naidu a/w Mr. Dharmnath Avhad, Mr. Pranav Avhad, Ms. Divya Yajurvedi, Ms. Darshan Naval for Respondent Nos.4 to 6. CORAM :

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

DATE :

th APRIL, 2023.

P.C. :

1.

The Petitioners assail the judgment and order dated 17 March 2023.

2.

We have heard Mr. Dere, the learned Advocate for the Petitioner, Mr. Naidu, the learned Advocate for the Respondent Nos.4 to 6 and the learned AGP.

3.

The Full Bench of the Tribunal has observed that the Petitioners had filled in forms in multiple units by stating different

K 2/2 15 wp 5298.23 as.doc names and/or the names of their parents though they were entitled to fill in the form only in one unit. 4.

It is not disputed that the Petitioner No.1 had filled in two forms with change names by misspelling the one whereas the Petitioner No.2 had given a different email-id in a second application. It is submitted that if the Petitioners would not have committed such mistake or would not have misrepresented with regard to the wrong email id or the name then the second form would not have been accepted.

5.

In the present matter as it is admitted fact that the Petitioner No.1 changed the spelling of his name in the second Application and Petitioner No.2 gave an erroneous email-id in the second Application, this Court would not interfere considering the conduct of Petitioners.

6.

In view of that we do not find any error on the part of the Tribunal. The contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners about the Petitioners in other Writ Petitions in participating only in one selection process would be considered in the other Writ Petitions in case there is no misrepresentation. 7.

The Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. (SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE) Digitally signed by SUDARSHAN RAJALINGAM KATKAM Date:

2023.04.24 10:11:20 +0530 SUDARSHAN RAJALINGAM KATKAM