Rutuja D/O Vilas Adhav And Ors vs The Staff Selection Commission ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 3782 Bom

                                                                     5.9426.22-wp.docx

                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
       Digitally
       signed by
                                      CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION
       TRUSHA
TRUSHA TUSHAR
TUSHAR MOHITE
MOHITE Date:
       2023.04.18
       10:29:19
       +0530
                                              WRIT PETITION NO. 9426 OF 2022

                           Siddhant Chudaman Mohite & Ors.             ..... Petitioners

                                    Vs.

                           The State Selection Commission
                           Through Regional Director & Ors.            ..... Respondents


                           Mr. Nileshsingh J. Patil h/f. Mr. Satish K. Ingale for the
                           Petitioner

                                                          WITH
                                              WRIT PETITION NO. 9447 OF 2022

                           Akshay Anil Kumbhar & Ors.                  ..... Petitioners

                                    Vs.

                           The Staff Selection Commission
                           Through Director and Anr.                   ..... Respondents

                           Mr. Nileshsingh J. Patil h/f. Mr. Satish K. Ingale for the
                           Petitioner
                           Ms.Shehnaz    V.    Bnarucha     a/w    Mr.D.A.Dube     i/b
                           Mr.A.A.Ansari
                                                     WITH
                                       WRIT PETITION NO. 9450 OF 2022

                           Rutuja Vilas Adhav & Ors.                   ..... Petitioners

                                    Vs.

                           The Staff Selection Commission & Ors. ..... Respondents

                           Mr. Nileshsingh J. Patil h/f. Mr. Satish K. Ingale for the
                           Petitioner
                           Ms.Shehnaz    V.    Bnarucha     a/w    Mr.D.A.Dube     i/b
                           Mr.A.A.Ansari



                           Mohite                                                                      1/3



                    ::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2023                 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2023 20:25:20 :::
                                                    5.9426.22-wp.docx

                                      WITH
                          WRIT PETITION NO. 5094 OF 2023

       Pranita Shaligram Kumawat & Ors.              ..... Petitioners

                Vs.

       The Staff Selection Commission
       and Ors.                                      ..... Respondents

       Mr. Nileshsingh J. Patil h/f. Mr. Satish K. Ingale for the
       Petitioner
       Ms.R.A.Salunkhe, A.G.P. for the State


                        CORAM:    S.V. GANGAPURWALA, ACJ &
                                  SANDEEP V. MARNE,J.

DATED : APRIL 17, 2023

P.C.

1 Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Counsel for the Respondents.

2 The Petitioners participated in the selection process of the year 2019. The Petitioners could not cross the bench mark, as such were not selected.

3 According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, the vacant posts exist. The Petitioners can be considered as against the vacant posts. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition No.5211 of 2022 with connected Writ Petitions dated 21.12.2022.

       4        In two matters, affidavit is filed by the Respondents. It


       Mohite                                                                        2/3




                                                  5.9426.22-wp.docx

is contended that the Petitioners could not cross the bench mark. From the affidavit, it appears that 4000 posts were vacant in different categories.

5 The marks obtained by the Petitioners are placed on record by the Respondents. The Petitioners did not appear to have crossed the bench mark.

6 As the Petitioners could not cross the bench mark, the Petitioners cannot have the legal right to seek appointment.

7 The learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the marks of the Petitioners were illegally deducted and some additional marks were granted to other candidates.

8 We do not find anything on record to substantiate the said contention.

9 The learned Counsel for the Petitioner seeks time.

       10       Stand over to 18.04.2023.




       (SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.)            (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)




       Mohite                                                                      3/3