The General Manager Hrmpp ... vs Dnyaneshwar Abhimanyu Wakade And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 1582 Bom

                                    1             911- RA 4-2021.odt



               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                   REVIEW APPLICATION (CIVIL) NO. 4 OF 2021
                                    IN
                       WRIT PETITION NO. 6368 OF 2019

 The General Manager,
 (HR-MPP) Corporate Office,
 Maharashtra State Electricity
 Transmission Co. Ltd.
 And another                                                   .. Applicants

          Versus

 Dnyaneshwar Abhimanyu Wakade
 and others                                                    .. Respondents

 Mr. S. V. Adwant, Advocate for the Applicants.
 Mr. A. B. Chalak, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
 Mrs. P. V. Diggikar, AGP for Respondent No. 4.

                               CORAM :   S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
                                         SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ.

DATED : 22nd JANUARY, 2021.

PER COURT:-

. Mr. Adwant, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the

original petitioners at no point of time were appointed, nor the

selection committee had occasion to consider these original writ

petitioners as eligible for appointments. According to the learned

counsel, the prayer of the petitioners was also to complete the selection

process. The matter was never placed before the selection committee as

well as before the appointing authority. They were only called for

1 of 3

2 911- RA 4-2021.odt

document verification and by the time the documents could be verified

after getting necessary information from their employers, the validity of

the list came to an end.

2. We have also heard Mr. Chalak, learned counsel for the

respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

3. We find that the present review on the grounds which are

agitated would not affect the conclusion drawn in the judgment under

review. We had never directed the present review applicants to directly

appoint the petitioners on particular posts. After considering the

pleadings and the submissions of the respective learned counsel, we

had under the judgment sought to be reviewed only directed the

respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to consider the candidature of the petitioners

for appointments on the post of Surveyor Grade-II in view of the Rule

29 (a) of the Maharashtra State Electricity Board Classification and

Recruitment Regulations, 1961, if they are otherwise found eligible for

the said posts.

4. Pursuant to the order under review, we had never given blanket

direction to the review applicants to appoint the petitioners. The

eligibility is to be considered by the review applicants. We had observed

in the order under review that it was inaction on the part of the present

2 of 3

3 911- RA 4-2021.odt

review applicants not to extend the wait list. We had also further

observed that there is no reason for the present review applicants to

refuse to consider appointments of the respondents / original writ

petitioners. We had considered that the original writ petitioners were

not at fault because of the lapse of time. It is for the review applicants

to consider the candidature of the petitioners, their eligibility for

appointments, in accordance with rules and regulations.

5. In the light of the above, we do not find any case for review.

Review application is rejected. No costs.

 ( SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI )                       ( S. V. GANGAPURWALA )
         JUDGE                                            JUDGE




 P.S.B.




                                                                            3 of 3