Bombay High Court
Manish Kumar Verma S/O Fulan ... vs Union Of India Thru General ... on 12 April, 2023
Bench: Sandeep V. Marne
2023:BHC-AS:11168-DB
2-RPW.24.2023
jvs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION
REVIEW PETITION NO. 24 OF 2023
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 964 OF 2023
Manish Kumar Verma s/o. Fulan }
Prasad Verma } Petitioner
SALUNKE
Versus
JV Union of India & Ors. } Respondents
Digitally signed by
SALUNKE J V
Date: 2023.04.13
19:01:40 +0530
Mr. Vicky Nagrani for the petitioner.
Mr. R. R.Shetty for respondents (UoI).
CORAM: S. V. GANGAPURWALA, Act.CJ.&
SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATE: APRIL 12, 2023
P.C.:
1. The petitioner seeks review of the judgment and order
dated 23rd February 2023.
2. The learned advocate for the petitioner submits that in Writ
Petition No. 54 of 2018, a coordinate Bench of this Court, under
judgment and order dated 30th September 2019, has considered
the similar set of facts and allowed the writ petition filed by the
candidate in respect of the same selection process; wherein,
similar deficiency existed. The Division bench observed that the
petitioner therein was allowed to participate in the selection
process and documents were also verified. No objections were
raised and thereafter, the candidature was rejected on the ground
that documents in support of the date of birth were not filed. This
Court considered the case and permitted the petitioner therein to
produce the certificate of SSC, School Leaving Certificate,
Domicile Certificate and the birth certificate within 4 (four)
weeks and after verification of the documents, the respondents
2-RPW.24.2023
were directed to appoint the petitioner therein.
3. According to the learned advocate for the petitioner, in the
present case also, the candidature of the petitioner was rejected
only on the ground that the petitioner failed to upload the
certificate to substantiate the date of birth. The learned advocate
for the petitioner submits that similar treatment is required to be
accorded to the petitioner herein.
4. Reliance is placed by the learned advocate for the petitioner
on a judgment of Apex Court in State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. vs.
Arvind Kumar Srivastava & Ors. (2015) 1 SCC 347.
5. We have also heard the learned advocate for respondent
no.1.
6. The selection process is of the year 2007. The petitioner had
filed original application before the Tribunal in the year 2016.
The said original application was dismissed on or about 18th
November 2019 and the writ petition was subsequently filed
before this Court in December 2021 after lapse of 2 (two) years.
7. The select list/wait list cannot operate in perpetuity. The
same has its own life. We cannot lose site of the fact that the
selection process is of the year 2007. We cannot now direct the
respondents to appoint the persons who had participated in the
selection process of the year 2007.
8. The judgment relied upon by the review petitioner in
respect of the similar selection process was not brought to the
notice of this Court while deciding the writ petition.
9. For the aforesaid reasons, no relief can be granted to the
petitioner. The review petition is disposed of.
10. No costs.
(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)
