Ganesh Dagdu Dhumal v. State Of Maharashtra And Others

(1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5370 OF 2021 GANESH DAGDU DHUMAL

VERSUS

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...

Mr. Vinod Patil, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.N. Lokhande, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 to 4. ...

CORAM : C.V. BHADANG AND SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, JJ.

DATE : 14 JUNE 2022 ORDER :

By this petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 21 September 2020 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT), Bench at Aurangabad in Misc. Application No. 177 of 2020 in Original Application No. 306 of 2020. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has refused to condone delay in filing the original application challenging the selection process undertaken by the respondents in the year 2007-08. Although no specific delay, which is sought to be condoned, is mentioned in the application, the learned Counsel for the

(2) petitioner submitted that the delay is of about ten years and one month. The petitioner sought to file the Original Application challenging selection process of the year 2007-08. 2.

We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned order. We do not find any reason to interfere with the same. The Tribunal has found that the entire selection process was completed in the year 2008 itself and till filing of the Representations dated 12 November 2018 and 18 February 2019, no grievance of any such sort was raised, and therefore, the Tribunal has held that inordinate delay of more than 11 years cannot be condoned. Incidentally, the selection process was in respect of the 'Kaksh Sevak' in Civil Hospital, Jalgaon which is a Class-IV post.

3.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that on account of pandemic, he could not take steps for challenging the selection process. We are unable to accept such contention as the pandemic and consequent lock-down was effected from March 2020 and the selection process is much prior to that.

(3) 4.

The petitioner has not shown sufficient cause for condonation of delay.

5.

The petition is accordingly dismissed.

SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J.

C.V. BHADANG, J.

VD_Dhirde