Naresh Vithalrao Yelvikar vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2017 Latest Caselaw 9226 Bom

                                                                       WP/6886/2008
                                            1

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                      WRIT PETITION NO. 6886 OF 2008

 Nagesh Vithalrao Yelvikar,
 Age 36 years, Occ. Service
 R/o Plot No.90, Ashirwad Society,
 Near Water Tank, Cidco, Nanded.                             ..Petitioner

 Versus

 1. The State of Maharashtra
 Through its Principal Secretary 
 to the Department of Agriculture
 and Cooperation, Mantralaya,
 Mumbai.

 2. Marathwada Agricultural
 University, Parbhani through its
 Registrar.                                                  ..Respondents

                                      ...
                  Advocate for Petitioner : Shri C K Shinde 
                 AGP for Respondent 1 : Shri Y.G.Gujarathi 
               Advocate for Respondent 1 : Shri V.G. Sakolkar
                                      ...

        CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & SUNIL K. KOTWAL, JJ.

Dated: November 30, 2017 ...

ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.):-

1. By this petition, the petitioner has putforth two prayers below

clause 18(B) and (C) as under:-

"(B) By writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or directions in like nature the respondent No.2 be directed to declare the result of the interview in respect of petitioner

WP/6886/2008

which was conducted as per letter dated 24th December 2003.

(C) By writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or directions in like nature, the respondent no.2 be directed to issue appointment orders in favour of petitioner for the post of Agriculture Officer / Senior Research Assistant, if found otherwise eligible."

2. We have considered the strenuous submissions of the learned

Advocates for the respective sides, as well as the learned AGP. We

have also perused our order dated 1.8.2011, while admitting this

petition. Learned Advocates have proceeded with this matter

notwithstanding the statement made on 13.7.2017 before this Court.

3. Considering our interim order, the crystallized position of law

and the fact that selection would not give a right to appointment to

any employee, we have no hesitation in considering this petition to

the extent of prayer clause 18(B). Unless the results of the interview

and the examination process are declared, we cannot step in to the

shoes of the employer and issue appointment orders, in our extra

ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4. Considering the above and the record available and in the

light of the submissions of the litigating sides, this petition is partly

WP/6886/2008

allowed in terms of prayer clause 18(B) and respondent No.2 is,

therefore, directed to declare the result of the interview in respect of

the petitioner and all other candidates. We make it clear that we

have not expressed any opinion in favour of the petitioner, inasmuch

as, we have not expressed any view as to how the establishment /

respondent No.2 should deal with the process of selection and

appointment at issue.

5. Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms.

( SUNIL K. KOTWAL, J. ) ( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. ) ...

akl/d