✦ Bombay High Court · 18 Jun 2012

Maharashtra Rajya Hangami Hivtap v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Case at a glance

Outcome

Partly allowed

With these directions, Writ Petition is partly allowed and is

Judgment

Mr.S.S.Thombre, advocate for petitioner. -- Mr.N.R.Shaikh, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 3. -- CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI AND SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, JJ. DATE : JUNE 18, 2012 P.C.: Heard respective learned counsel. 2] Respondents have in their reply, in paragraph 2, stated that pursuant to the advertisement dated 5th October, 2008, 454 posts of Laboratory Technicians have been filled in and remaining vacancies shall be filled in shortly as per amended Recruitment Rules, 2011 framed for recruitment of Laboratory Technicians. Grievance of the 2 9069-11-wp.odt petitioner is, therefore, redressed. However, Mr. Thombre, learned advocate for petitioners – Association points out that need of applying afresh should be exempted. According to him, in response to the advertisement, petitioners have submitted their applications which are complete in all respects. Learned AGP is insisting on fresh applications. 3] In the situation, we find that interest of justice can be met with by directing the petitioners to supply to the respondents one more copy of their application submitted by them in response to the advertisement dated 5th October, 2008 so that, the respondents can expeditiously look into the said applications and expedite the process for filling in balance posts. Mr.Thombre pointed out that the advertisement dated 5th October, 2008 was for 1007 posts. 4] Petitioners to supply additional copies of their earlier applications to the respondents within four weeks from today. The respondents to process those applications and take necessary decision within a further period of four weeks thereafter. 5] With these directions, Writ Petition is partly allowed and is 3 9069-11-wp.odt disposed of with no order as to costs. Certified copy expedited. [SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.] [B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J.]

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: With these directions, Writ Petition is partly allowed and is

Which court decided this case, and when?

Bombay High Court, on 18 Jun 2012. The bench was ARMADHIKARI, SUNIL P DESHMUKH, B P DHARMADHIKARI.

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. 9069 of 2011). ← Search more judgments