Vikas Vijayroa Nannaware v. Maharashtra State Road Transportation Corporation, Mumbai And Another

wp6822.14 -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6822 OF 2014 VIKAS VIJAYROA NANNAWARE

VERSUS

MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORTATION CORPORATION, MUMBAI AND ANOTHER ...

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Tungar Nikhilesh K. Advocate for Respondents : Mr. D.S. Bagul .....

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND V. K. JADHAV, JJ.

DATED : 10th JUNE, 2015 P.C. :- 1.

Mr. Tungar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was minor mistake in the form and because of that minor mistake, the right of the petitioner is being negated. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner had appeared for written examination and was also called for oral interview but was not selected only on the ground that in the application the petitioner had ticked female instead of male and that cannot be said to be a mistake which would go to the root of the case. There was no impediment for the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner.

2.

Mr. Bagul, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no fault on the part of the respondents. The selection

wp6822.14 -2process is complete and there is no vacancy available for the petitioner.

3.

It appears that by passage of time selection process has culminated, all posts are filled in and no vacancies are available, as submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents. 4.

In view of the fact that selection process is complete and now no vacancy is available, the grievance of the petitioner cannot be considered. In the result writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. ( V. K. JADHAV, J.) ( S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ) rlj/