Vijay v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
With these directions, petition is disposed of with no order as to
Judgment
Mr.P.B.Patil, advocate for petitioner. -- Mr.V.B.Ghatge, AGP for respondent nos.1 and 2. Mr.Alok Sharma, A.S.G.I. for respondent no.3. Mr.A.B.Girase, advocate for respondent no.4. -- CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI AND SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, JJ. DATE : JUNE 18, 2012 P.C.: Heard Mr.P.B.Patil, learned advocate for petitioner, Mr.V.B.Ghatge, learned AGP for respondent nos.1 and 2, Mr.Alok Sharma, learned A.S.G.I. for respondent no.3 and Mr.A.B.Girase, learned advocate for respondent no.4. None appears for respondent no.5. 2 5253-10-wp.odt 2] Petitioner is selected as Director of Physical Education in pursuance to advertisement dated 29th July, 2008 and is already functioning on that post. However, approval to his appointment has been rejected by respondent no.4 on 25th May, 2010 on the ground that he has not passed national test conducted for said purpose by the University Grants Commission. 3] Mr.Patil, learned advocate for petitioner contends, no such test has been conducted so far and therefore, the petitioner cannot be blamed. He further contends that in so far as other Universities are concerned, the candidates like petitioner have been given approval conditionally, subject to their passing said examination as and when conducted. Mr.Girase has disputed this position. 4] Learned A.S.G.I. appearing for respondent no.3 has invited attention to the affidavit dated 10th January, 2011 filed on behalf of respondent no.3. According to him, the eligibility examination i.e.NET has already been conducted. However, he is seeking time to find out and place before us the relevant dates to show exact examination in which present petitioner should have appeared. 3 5253-10-wp.odt 5] In view of the statement made by Mr.Patil that such test has not been conducted so far and in other Universities, conditional approval has been given and copies of those approval annexed to the present petition, we find it appropriate to direct the petitioner to make necessary representation to respondent no.4 – University within a period of two weeks from today giving all details. If such representation is made by the petitioners, the University shall hear the petitioner and after verifying necessary details and after getting details from respondent no.3 – University Grants Commission, shall pass appropriate order granting approval conditionally or otherwise or rejecting it, within a period of twelve weeks. 6] The petitioner who is presently continued as Director of Physical Education, shall continue on the said post till the decision by respondent no.4 – University. This continuation of the petitioner on the said post shall not cloth him with any right either in law or equity. The impugned order passed by it on 25th May, 2010 shall not come in the way of respondent no.4 – University while taking decision on the representation of the petitioner. 4 5253-10-wp.odt 7] With these directions, petition is disposed of with no order as to costs. [SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.] [B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J.] kbp/
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: With these directions, petition is disposed of with no order as to
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 18 Jun 2012. The bench was ARMADHIKARI, SUNIL P DESHMUKH.
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.