Bombay High Court
Aarti Ramesh Devargavkar vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 12 December, 2022
Bench: Santosh Govindrao Chapalgaon...
14. WP 12843-2019 (common order).doc
Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 12843 OF 2019
Aarti Ramesh Devargavkar .Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra & ors. .Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 19968 OF 2022
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 12843 OF 2019
Aarti Ramesh Devargavkar .Applicant
IN THE MATTER OF
Aarti Ramesh Devargavkar .Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra & ors. .Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 13131 OF 2019
Monali Dattatray Jadhav .Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra & ors. .Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 19967 OF 2022
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 13131 OF 2019
Monali Dattatray Jadhav .Applicant
IN THE MATTER OF
1 of 4
::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 13/12/2022 16:51:40 :::
14. WP 12843-2019 (common order).doc
Monali Dattatray Jadhav .Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra & ors. .Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12844 OF 2019
Ashwini Gautam Waghmare .Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra & ors. .Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 19966 OF 2022
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 12844 OF 2019
Ashwini Gautam Waghmare .Applicant
IN THE MATTER OF
Ashwini Gautam Waghmare .Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra & ors. .Respondents
Mr. N. V. Bandiwadekar i/b. Mrs. Ashwini N. Bandiwadekar,
Advocate, for the Petitioner
Mr. Shantanu Chandratre, Advocate, for the Applicant
Mrs. M. P. Thakur, AGP, for Respondent No. 1 - State
Mr. Abhijit Kulkarni a/w Ms Surta Shah, Advocate, for
Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 - PMC
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, ACJ. AND
S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
DATE : 12 DECEMBER 2022
P. C.
. It appears that the select list and the wait list were
published on 05.11.2017.
2 of 4
14. WP 12843-2019 (common order).doc
2. The Petitioner's name fnds place in the wait list.
3. It does not appear to be a matter of debate that the
Respondent issued appointment orders to the candidates for
flling up all the posts. Some of the candidates did not join. The
wait list was to be operative for a period of one year. From the
facts, it appears that prior to the expiry of one year from the
publication of the select list, the Respondent could have offered
appointment letters to the Petitioner, as the persons to whom
appointment orders were issued either did not join or were not
found liable to be appointed. According to the learned counsel for
the Petitioner, wait list should operate from the date the last
candidate is appointed. Reliance is placed upon the Judgment of
the Apex Court in the case of State of J. and K. and Ors. v. Sat Pal,
reported in AIR 2013 SC 1258.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondent -
Corporation submits that the wait list operates from the date it is
published and the same cannot be extended. The Petitioner's
claim could not be considered within a period of one year as such
the Authority could not have appointed the Petitioner. Reliance is
3 of 4
14. WP 12843-2019 (common order).doc
also placed on the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court
in the case of Maharashtra Public Service Commission vs.
Pankajkumar C. Dabhire & ors, reported in 2018 SCC OnLine
Bom 1413. Learned counsel for the Respondent also relies upon
the Government Resolution dated 19.10.2007. Learned counsel
for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner was called for
verifcation of documents.
5. Stand over to 19.12.2022.
( S. G. Chapalgaonkar, J. ) ( S. V. Gangapurwala, ACJ. )
4 of 4
