Smita Bhanudas Lakade v. Union of India & 3 ors
Case at a glance
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. In order to satisfy ourselves, we asked the respondents to produce the papers of both the candidates. On perusing the said papers, we have noticed that in the letter to be addressed to the Post Master, the same has been copied exactly by the…
Judgment
Mr. K.S. Bapat with Mr. Avinash Fatangare for the petitioner. Mr. K.R. Chaudhary with Mr. N.R. Prajapati for the respondents No.1. R.M. SAVANT, JJ. CORAM: S.B. MHASE & DATED : 16TH SEPTEMBER, 2009. P.C.:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The point of fixation of age has been properly answered by the respondents stating that the persons who were eligible to apply as per the earlier cut-off date are also eligible to apply in the subsequent advertisement. Thereby, there is no problem in respect of the cut-off date insofar as age fixation is concerned. The petitioner has not been selected because she has indulged in the malpractice of copying. : 2 :
In order to satisfy ourselves, we asked the respondents to produce the papers of both the candidates. On perusing the said papers, we have noticed that in the letter to be addressed to the Post Master, the same has been copied exactly by the petitioner from the other candidate. We, therefore, do not find it appropriate to interfere in the present matter, and, accordingly, reject the Writ Petition. Sd/- (R.M. SAVANT, J.) Sd/-
(S.B. MHASE, J.)
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.