Sudhakar Sanduji Gandhile v. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Through The Chief Executive Officer Mumbai

(1) 905-ra-2744-2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 905 REVIEW APPLICATION ST. NO.2744 OF 2019 IN WP/260/2016 SUDHAKAR SANDUJI GANDHILE ..APPLICANT

VERSUS

MAHARASHTRA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION THROUGH THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICE ..RESPONDENT ...

Mr. S. S. Thombre h/f Mr. Murlidhar S. Karad, Advocate for the Applicant.

...

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA & R. G. AVACHAT, JJ.

DATED : 08th FEBRUARY, 2019.

PER COURT:- 1.

Mr. Thombre, learned counsel for the applicant submits that this Court on the ground that in the year 1994 the names from the employment exchange were called and one Mr. Deore was appointed as Junior Engineer is incorrect. The respondents have incorrectly stated the said fact. The advertisement was issued in the year 1989 and from the wait list the names were taken and the list was exhausted upto the year 1994. The learned counsel submits that the applicant's claim was considered in the year 1991, however, the same was not processed till 1994 and as such the applicant was not given the appointment. The applicant's case to be appointed on the post of Junior

(2) 905-ra-2744-2019 Engineer ought to have been considered in the year 1991 itself.

2.

One reason for not entertaining the writ petition was that the applicant had made claim and the respondents had negated the claim of the applicant in the year 1995. We had also observed that thereafter making any representation would not inure to the benefit of the applicant. The writ petition was filed in the year 2016 after a long slumber of 21 years. In paragraph no.6 we have specifically observed as under:

"The claim of the petitioner was already rejected in the year 1995. Had the petitioner, approached this Court immediately, his grievance could have been considered. Upon negation of the claim of the petitioner in 1995, further representation would not inure to the benefit of the petitioner."

3.

In light of the above, no case is made out for review. Review Application is disposed of. No costs.

(R. G. AVACHAT) (S. V. GANGAPURWALA) JUDGE JUDGE Devendra/February-19