← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/11248/2014dismissedrule discharged

Kalyani Anil Kamble v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

2015-07-06Hon'Ble Shri Justice S V Gangapurwala,Hon'Ble Shri Justice V.K. Jadhav3 pages

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.11248 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.P.P.Dama, advocate for the Petitioner.

Mr.K.J.Ghute Patil, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for the State.

Mr.S.R.Bagal, Standing counsel for Respondent No.3. CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA & V.K.JADHAV,JJ.

Date : 06.07.2015.

PER COURT :

1.

Heard.

2.

Mr.Dama, learned counsel for the petitioner states that Petitioner had applied for the post of Arogya Sevika from SC(General) category. The petitioner got 126 marks, however, Respondent No.3 selected Respondent No.4 who had only 108 marks. Even Respondent No.5 has less marks than the petitioner but he is still selected. The petitioner is not called for interview nor is selected. The Respondents have committed illegality in the selection process.

3.

Mr.Bagal, learned counsel for the Respondent submits that Respondent No.4 had applied from SC (General) PAP category

and Respondent No.5 had applied from E.S.B.C. Category. The Respondent No.4 could not produce PAP certificate, as such is not considered in the further selection process and Respondent No.4 belongs to different category.

4.

We have considered the submissions. The petitioner would have right to make grievance if the candidate having less marks than the petitioner in the category from which petitioner had applied and is selected. The Respondent No.4 is not considered for further selection process at all. The Respondent No.5 had applied from E.S.B.C category i.e. a category different from the one applied by the petitioner. The petitioner is not in a position to show any other candidate from the category from which the petitioner had applied being selected and having less marks than the petitioner. 5.

In light of the above, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.

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

asp/office/wp11292.14