Venkat Ramsingh Rajendrasing ... vs Municipal Council, Gondia Thr. ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 10500 Bom

                                                1                    wp1071.22.odt

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

                    WRIT PETITION NO.1071/2022

     Venkat Ramansing Rajendrasing Chavhan,
     aged about 48 years, Occ. Service,
     r/o Gopalsadan, Nehru Ward, Civil Lines,
     Gondia.                             .....PETITIONER
                            ...V E R S U S...

1. Municipal Council, Gondia,
   through its Chief Officer.
2. The Education Officer (Sec.)
   Zilla Parishad, Gondia.

3. Manohar Municipal Higher
   Secondary School, Gondia,
   through its Headmaster.                              ...RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Prashant N. Shende, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. M. I. Dhatrak, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 and 3.
Mr. K. L. Dharmadhikari, A.G.P. for respondent no.2.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       CORAM:- SUNIL B. SHUKRE & ANIL L. PANSARE, JJ.

DATED :- 11.10.2022

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: Sunil B. Shukre, J.)

Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

Heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the parties.

2. It is seen that the petitioner has suppressed

material facts from this Court. There is an affidavit submitted

by the petitioner, admitting that he was appointed on a post 2 wp1071.22.odt

reserved for the Scheduled Tribes, but, later on, due to

protection granted to him by the Government Resolution

dated 18.05.2013, the petitioner agreed for changing his

category of appointment from Scheduled Tribes to Open and,

accordingly, by this affidavit dated 26.05.2016, the petitioner

gave his specific consent for change of category of his

appointment from the Scheduled Tribes to Open category.

3. Here the petitioner, however, has claimed that he

was appointed on the post, which was reserved for the Open

category and that is why he was never appointed on the post

reserved for the Scheduled Tribes category, which is contrary

to what is stated in his affidavit. There is no explanation

given in the petition about the admissions given by him. In

fact, there is no averment made about submitting of an

affidavit by him earlier. We, therefore, find that the

averments made in the petition are misleading, inasmuch as,

there is no candid disclosure about the admissions given by

the petitioner in the affidavit dated 26.05.2016. The 3 wp1071.22.odt

petitioner does not deserve any relief from an equity Court

like this. Therefore, the petition stands dismissed.

Rule is discharged.

(Anil L. Pansare, J.) (Sunil B. Shukre, J.)

kahale

Digitally signed byYOGESH ARVIND KAHALE Signing Date:13.10.2022 12:09