Mohammad Naseer Ahmed Mohammad Sadeque v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.7864 OF 2014 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.

Court's or Judge's orders Mr.Y.M.Khan, advocate for the advocate for petitioner.

Mr.D.B.Bhange, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for the State. Mr.D.S.Bagul, advocate for Respondent No.3.

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

Date : 06.07.2015.

PER COURT :

1.

Heard.

2.

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner had applied for the post of Painter Art.'A' (Junior). He is possessing requisite qualification and experience. However, erroneously the Respondents have not considered the experience of the petitioner in correct perspective. The Certificates issued by Tata Motors Ltd., so also James Enterprises have not been considered. The working hours with James Enterprises and Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd were different. The petitioner has also worked with Bharat Welding Works, the same has also not been considered.

3.

We have heard Mr.Bagul, learned counsel for the Respondent.

4.

We have perused the certificates. The certificate issued by Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd is that of a trainee and not of an employee. The certificate issued by James Enterprises is also virtually of the same period as that of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. As per the certificate issued by Tata Motors, the petitioner is relieved on 30.7.2007, whereas the certificate of Mahindra and Mahindra states that petitioner was trainee from 26.7.2007. All these certificates are overlapping. The same does not inspire confidence. In light of that, no relief can be granted to the petitioner.

5.

The Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

(V.K.JADHAV,J.) (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) Dt.06.07.2015.

asp/office/wp7864.14