Bombay High CourtWP/2554/2003dismissedrule discharged

Shri Purnalal Sitkura Hurre v. State Of Maharashtra And Others.

2016-01-08Hon'Ble Smt. Justice V.A. Naik,Hon'Ble Shri Justice A.S. Chandurkar2 pages

WP2554-03 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 2554/2003 (PURANLAL SITKURA HURRE VERSUS STATE OF MAH. & OTHERS) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - None for the petitioner.

Shri A.V. Palshikar, A.G.P. for the R-1 & 2.

Mrs. M.P. Munshi, counsel for the R-3, 4 & 6. CORAM : SMT.VASANTI A. NAIK AND A.S. CHANDURKAR, JJ.

DATE : JANUARY 8 , 2016.

None appears for the petitioner. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the respondents, we have perused the writ petition and the documents filed along with it. The petitioner has sought a declaration that the respondent nos.1 to 4 should appoint the petitioner in Zilla Parishad, Bhandara on the post of Animal Husbandry Supervisor, which is a Class-III post. A further declaration is sought that the petitioner is more meritorious and deserving than the respondent no.5.

While admitting the writ petition, this Court had passed an interim order on 19.08.2003 directing the respondent nos.3 and 4 to select candidates by strictly following the rule of merit in the select list. Thereafter, the candidate at Serial Number 2 in the select list was given an appointment on the post in question.

In reply filed on behalf of the respondent nos.3 and 4, it has been stated that as the respondent no.5 had a validity certificate, he was selected by the selection committee by relying upon Government Resolution dated 16.08.2000. The candidates, who were above the petitioner in the merit list, were not selected as they did not possess any validity certificate.

WP2554-03 In view of the aforesaid position, there is no scope for interference in the writ petition, specially when the recruitment pertains to the year 2003. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. Rule stands discharged. JUDGE JUDGE APTE