← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/7885/2018disposed offdismissed for default

Vinayak Manohar Joshi v. The Union Of India And Another

2018-07-17Hon'Ble Shri Justice S V Gangapurwala,Hon'Ble Shri Justice Sunil K. Kotwal2 pages

(1) WP No.7885/2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

WRIT PETITION NO.7885 OF 2018 Vinayak Manohar Joshi.

Petitioner.

Versus

The Union of India and another.

Respondents.

*** Mr. R.G. Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner.

*** CORAM :

S.V. GANGAPURWALA & SUNIL K. KOTWAL,JJ.

Dated :

17th July, 2018.

FINAL ORDER :- .

We have heard Mr. Joshi, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had applied pursuant to the selection process of the year 2007. Though the petitioner was found in merit, the petitioner was not given appointment order only on the ground that caste certificate is not produced. The learned Counsel submits that there is no provision to issue caste certificate of 'Brahmin' caste. The petitioner was selected as a religious leader. The earlier writ petition was withdrawn. The petitioner was not having knowledge of the same,

(2) WP No.7885/2018 nor the petitioner had instructed the concerned Advocate to withdraw the writ petition.

2.

It appears that the earlier writ petition was withdrawn by the Advocate in good faith. We cannot accept the averments of the petitioner on the face value.

3.

However, we have also examined case of the petitioner on merits. It appears that subsequently in the year 2015 fresh selection process was undertaken by the petitioner. The petitioner had also applied pursuant to the fresh selection process of the year 2015, but the petitioner could not be selected. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner became age barred at that time.

4.

Moreover, the grievance of the petitioner with regard to the selection process of the year 2013 cannot be considered at this stage and more particularly when the fresh selection process was already conducted for the said post in the year 2015. 5.

In light of the above, the writ petition is devoid of merits. The Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

( SUNIL K. KOTWAL) ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA) JUDGE JUDGE vdd/