✦ Bombay High Court · 09 Mar 2007

Vilas Khandu Awhad v. Public Service Commission & Anr.

Writ Petition No. 1645 of 2007F I REBELLO, R M SAVANT

Case at a glance

Provisions considered

Key paragraphs

  • Para 22. Considering the above and without notice to the respondents in the event the petitioner applies in terms of the instructions within 30 days and has complied with the other requirements and if the papers are available the Secretary of Maharashtra Public Service Commission to…

Judgment

Mr.D.S.Mhaispurkar i/b.Sandeep Mangaonkar, for petitioner Mr. P.P. Kakade, AGP for Respondent No.2. CORAM : F.I.F.I. CORAM : REBELLO & F.I. REBELLO & CORAM : REBELLO & R.M.SAVANT, JJ. R.M.SAVANT, JJ. R.M.SAVANT, JJ. DATED : 9TH MARCH, 2007 DATED : 9TH MARCH, 2007. DATED : 9TH MARCH, 2007 P.C. P.C.P.C. . It is the case of the petitioner that results were declared by the Maharashtra Public Service Commission on 19th November, 2006. In terms of the instructions for the examinations to be held in 2004 if the candidate applied within 30 days for reverification that will be considered. The case of the petitioner is that he applied on 20th November, 2006. In other words within the stipulated time.

2.

Considering the above and without notice to the respondents in the event the petitioner applies in terms of the instructions within 30 days and has complied with the other requirements and if the papers are available the Secretary of Maharashtra Public Service Commission to take steps to get the marks verified and communicate to the petitioner at any rate within 15 days from the date of the application. With the above observations petition stands disposed of. F.I.REBELLO, J) (F.I.REBELLO F.I.REBELLO R.M.SAVANT,J.) (R.M.SAVANT,J R.M.SAVANT,J

Questions this judgment answers

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Which court decided this case, and when?

Bombay High Court, on 09 Mar 2007. The bench was F I REBELLO, R M SAVANT.

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.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Bombay High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. Writ Petition No. 1645 of 2007). ← Search more judgments