Hemraj S/O Pandhari Bankar v. State Of Maha. Thr. Its Sec. Department Of Rural Development, Mantralaya Mumbai. And ORS.

2024:BHC-NAG:3067-DB 1 WP-1632-2024.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.1632 of 2024 Hemraj S/o Panchari Bankar Versus State of Maharashtra and others Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court'

s orders of directions Court' s or Judge'

s order and Registrar'

s orders.

Shri Sagar Y. Rawate, holding for Shri S.S. Dhengale, Counsel for Petitioner. Shri S.M. Ukey, Additional Government Pleader for Respondent No.1. CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE AND ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.

ATE : 13 th MARCH, P. C.:

1.

Heard.

2.

The learned counsel for the petitioner claims that pursuant to the advertisement dated 4-8-2023, the petitioner appeared in the examination conducted by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 through the private agencies, as he was aspirant of getting selected for the post of Extension Officer (Education). 3.

According to the learned counsel, the petitioner performed well in the examination, however the marks allotted to him were not as per his expectation, so he made a representation to the respondent No.2, which has not yet been decided till date. Our attention is invited to the representation dated 20-2-2024 at Annexure-5.

4.

The learned counsel would draw support from Clause 18.3 of the advertisement so as to claim that the petitioner has every right to make a representation in relation to the recruitment process. As such, it is prayed that the respondent No.2- Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nagpur be directed to decide the aforesaid representation.

5.

We have perused Clause 18.3 of the advertisement, which provides that the representation can be made by an aggrieved candidate. Since the petitioner has every right to make a representation, he has rightly done so. 6.

In view of aforesaid, it was expected of the respondent No.2 to deal with the said representation, which is informed to have been not decided till date.

2 WP-1632-2024.odt 7.

We allow the petition partly by directing the respondent No.2 to decide the representation made by the petitioner at Annexure-5 expeditiously in accordance with law and in any case within a period of four weeks from the date of production of this order alongwith the copies of petition and annexures. (ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) (NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.) LANJEWAR