← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/6439/2016disposed offdismissed for default

Ashwini Subhash Dhakne v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

2018-11-21Hon'Ble Shri Justice S V Gangapurwala,Hon'Ble Shri Justice R. G. Avachat3 pages

1 wp 6439.16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6439 OF 2016 Ashwini Subhash Dhakne ..Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents Mr. Nilkanth P. Bangar, Advocate for the Petitioner.

Mrs. M. A. Deshpande, Addl. G. P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

Mr. Anup R. Nikam, Advocate for Respondent No. 4. CORAM: S. V. GANGAPURWALA & R. G. AVACHAT, JJ.

DATE:

st November, 2018 PER COURT :

1.

Mr. Bangar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had applied for the post of Shikshan Sevak from NT - D category and has secured 123 marks. The persons who have secured less marks than the petitioner have been considered and have been issued with the appointment orders for the post of Shikshan Sevak.

2 wp 6439.16 The learned counsel submits that after reverification the petitioner has obtained 128 marks. The persons who are shown as successful by the respondents have secured marks in the range of 107 to 112. The respondents have conducted selection process in arbitrary manner.

2.

Mr. Nikam, learned counsel for respondent no. 4 submits that the cut off marks for NT-D category was 143 marks. The petitioner had secured much less marks. The petitioner cannot compete with the persons in the other category and for 20% English medium category.

3.

We have considered the submissions canvassed by the learned counsel for respective parties. 4.

It is not disputed that the petitioner has secured 123 marks and cut off marks for Marathi medium in NT-D category is 143. Of course, certainly the petitioner cannot compete with the candidates who had applied in 20% English medium category. The petitioner applied from 80% Marathi

3 wp 6439.16 medium category. In the said category, we do not find any person securing less than 143 marks having been appointed.

5.

In the light of above, no case for interference in made out. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

[R. G. AVACHAT, J.] [S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] marathe