Pankaj S/O Ashokrao Tambde And Another v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development, Amravati And Others

2025:BHC-NAG:2564-DB 10-WP-5549-19.odt 1/1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

WRIT PETITION NO.5549 OF 2019 Pankaj S/o Ashokrao Tambde, Gopal Nagar, Amravati and anr. -vsAdditional Commissioner, Tribal Development, Amravati and ors. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders.

or directions and the Registrar's orders.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Shri Amey Chourasiya, Advocate h/f Shri R. R. Dawda, Advocate for petitioners. Shri S. M. Ghodeswar, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 3. CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE AND MRS VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ. DATE : March 13, 2025 1.

Heard.

2.

The petitioners are seeking quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 27/02/2018 passed by the respondent No.1-Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development, Amravati whereby prayer for approval to the appointment of the petitioners came to be rejected. 3.

Admittedly, the petitioners have not placed on record the advertisement pursuant to which they have applied for the post in question. 4.

On perusal of the register shown by the respondents as against the the claim put forth by the petitioners, it can be inferred that the petitioners were appointed without following the due process of law. 5.

Once it is inferred that the petitioners were not appointed after following the due process of law, there is no question of the respondent granting approval to their appointment, particularly when the norms for the approval are not duly adhered to.

6.

Rightly so, Shri Ghodeswar, learned Assistant Government Pleader pointed about the failure of the Management to maintain transparency in the selection process.

7.

In that view of the matter, no case for interference is made out. 8.

The writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. (Mrs Vrushali V. Joshi, J.) (Nitin W. Sambre, J.) Asmita