Prasad Vinayak Patil v. State Of Maharashtra Throu. Chief Sec. Ministry Of Transport (Msrtc) And ANR )

TRUPTI SADANAND BAMNE TRUPTI SADANAND BAMNE Date: 2025.02.20 10:35:06 +0530

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 422 OF 2024 Mr.Prasad Vinayak Patil ...

Petitioner versus State of Maharashtra & Anr.

...

Respondents ---- Ms.Heena Shaikh i/b. Mr.Jeevandatt M. Argade for the Petitioner. Mr.P.P.Kakade, Addl.GP with Mrs. Pooja Joshi Deshpande, AGP for Respondent No.1, State.

Mr.Nitesh Bhutekar i/b. Ms.Priyanka Lanke for Respondent No.2, MSRTC.

Mr.Kailash Bhagat, DPO, Pune Division present. ---- CORAM :

RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & ASHWIN D. BHOBE, JJ.

DATE :

17th February, 2025 P.C. :- 1.

On 7th February, 2025, considering the prayers of the Petitioner, we had passed the following order : "1. The learned Advocate for the MSRTC, submits on instructions from the representatives of the MSRTC, who are present in the Court, that results of the examination with reference to which the Petition has been filed, would be uploaded on the website and would be available for everyone to see, by 11th February, 2025. The printout of the record is shown to us by the learned Advocate.

2. Considering the difficulty of the learned Advocate for the MSRTC, we are listing this Petition on 17th February, 2025, in the Disposal Category."

2.

The learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that the result has been uploaded on the official website of the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC). The Petitioner is still aggrieved by the marks granted to other candidates and desires to challenge the marks granted to each of those candidates, by resorting to a remedy, as may be permissible in law. 3.

The learned Advocate for the Respondent -MSRTC submits that none of the candidates, who are above the Petitioner in the result list, are arrayed as Respondents in this Petition. The MSRTC had advertised 1647 posts of Driver-cum-Conductor. 4.

Since the Petitioner desires to avail of a remedy, as may be permissible in law, this Writ Petition is disposed off. 5.

If the Petitioner challenges the allotment of the marks of any other candidate, the disposal of this Petition would not be an impediment, though we are not expressing any opinion about the

maintainability of such a challenge to the marks allotted to competitors, who are above the Petitioner.

(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)