Ku. Vidya Nivrutti Wadhave v. The State Of Maha. Thr Its Secretary, Animal Husbandary Dept., Mantralaya, Mumbai

22.06.wp.3061.16

IN THE COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.3061/2016 (Ku.vidya Nivrutti Wadhave vs. The State of Maharashtra and others ) .............................................................................................................................................. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders .............................................................................................................................................. Mr.M.P.Kariya, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Vishal Gangane, Assistant Govt.Pleader for Respondent Nos.1 & 3 CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A.NAIK & MRS.SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.

DATED : 22nd June, 2016 Heard.

By this Writ Petition, the petitioner seeks a direction against the respondent nos. 3 and 5 to consider the candidature of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Livestock Supervisor. The petitioner challenges the appointment of the respondent no.6 on the post of Livestock Supervisor and seeks her appointment, instead.

We are afraid the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted. The petitioner admittedly is less meritorious than the respondent no. 6. It appears that since the respondent no.6, who was selected for the post of Livestock Supervisor, in pursuance of the advertisement issued in the year 2014, could not appear on the date on which the documents were to be verified, an opportunity was granted to the respondent no.6 to tender the documents on a subsequent date.

22.06.wp.3061.16 The documents were so tendered by the respondent no.6 and she was appointed on the post of Livestock Supervisor. The respondent no.6 has joined the duties as a Livestock Supervisor in pursuance of the order of appointment dated 9.3.2015. The case of the petitioner that after joining also, the respondent no.6 is remaining absent without proper leave and hence the candidature of the petitioner should be considered and the order of appointment of the respondent no. 6 should be set aside, is fallacious and is liable to be rejected. We do not find any merit in the case of the petitioner so as to grant indulgence in the matter. We find that the appointment of the respondent no.6 was made one year earlier and the petition is filed belatedly.

Since there is no merit in the Writ Petition. The same is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE sahare