Bombay High CourtWP/797/2015dismissedrule discharged

Anil S/O Shankar Bokare v. Mah. State Electricity Distribution Co.Ltd. Thr. Its Chairman And Another

2015-09-29Hon'Ble Smt. Justice V.A. Naik,Hon'Ble Shri Justice A.I.S. Cheema2 pages

WP797-15 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 797/2015 (ANIL SHANKAR BOKARE VERSUS M.S.E.D.C.L., MUMBAI & ANOTHER) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri S.P. Palshikar, counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.V. Purohit, counsel for the respondents. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND A.I.S. CHEEMA, JJ.

DATE : SEPTEMBER 29 , 2015.

By this petition, the petitioner challenges the selection process conducted by the respondents in pursuance of the Advertisement, No.1 of 2012.

The petitioner had applied for the post of Electrical Assistant in pursuance of the advertisement issued by the respondents in June-2012. The case of the petitioner was considered and the petitioner was asked to submit the relevant documents for verification. After the respondents verified the documents of the petitioner, the candidature of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the petitioner is age barred. The petitioner has challenged the rejection of his candidature. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondents, it appears that the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted. A similar challenge to the Advertisement, No.1 of 2012 was made by the petitioner in Writ Petition No.607 of 2012 and this Court had dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner. It appears that based on the said judgment, the Aurangabad Bench also passed a similar order dismissing Writ Petition No.4778 of 2012.

WP797-15 Since the issue involved in this writ petition stands answered against the petitioner by the aforesaid decisions, the prayer made by the petitioner is liable to be rejected. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.

JUDGE JUDGE APTE