Yogesh Madhavrao Jangle vs The State Of Maharashtra Through Its ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 1819 Bom

Bombay High Court

Yogesh Madhavrao Jangle vs The State Of Maharashtra Through Its ... on 22 January, 2024

Author: Ravindra V. Ghuge

Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge

2024:BHC-AUG:1731-DB


                                                                           838.24wp
                                                (1)

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                  WRIT PETITION NO. 838 OF 2024
                                YOGESH MADHAVRAO JANGLE
                                         VERSUS
                     THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL
                                  SECRETARY AND OTHERS
                                                ....
                Mr S. S. Thombre, Advocate for Petitioner;
                Mr S. B. Narwade, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1
                Mr A. B. Kadethankar, Advocate for Respondent No.2

                                         CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE
                                                         AND
                                                 Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.

DATE : 24th January, 2024

PER COURT:

1. The Petitioner has put forth prayer clauses (B) and (C)

which read as under :-

"(B) By issuing a writ of mandamus, orders, directions or any other appropriate writ in the like nature, direct the respondent No.2 to include name of the petitioner in the final Select List prepared for the candidates for appointment to the post of Junior Clerk-cum-Typist on the establishment of the respondent No.2 and for that purpose, issue necessary orders;

(C) Pending hearing and final disposal of this writ petition, the respondent No.2 may kindly be restrained from issuing any appointment orders in favour of those candidates, who scored less marks in the online examination than the petitioner from EWS category for appointment to the post of Junior Clerk-cum-Typist on the 838.24wp

establishment of Respondent No.2 MHADA and for that purpose issue necessary orders."

2. In a similar group of cases, we have delivered a

detailed judgment running into 14 pages, on 07/11/2023. This

Petitioner is one of those Petitioners, who appeared for the

examination, held as a part of the selection process by Respondent

No.2/MHADA, for filling up of the posts of Junior Clerk-cum-

Typist. It is undisputed that the Petitioner, as like those

Petitioners, is in the merit list. Issuance of appointment orders for

the said posts, has already commenced.

3. The ground raised by the Maharashtra Housing and

Area Development Authority (MHADA) is that, the present

Petitioner, along with 60 examinees, purportedly indulged in

unfair exam practices and the first information report dated

07/12/2022 bearing No.1015/2022 is registered against them at

Police Station Kherwadi, District Brihan mumbai City.

4. We have perused the allegation against the present

Petitioner set out in the first information report, which reads as

under :-

838.24wp

" योगेश माधवराव जंगले, रा. ठठ. सारोळा, नाथनवेल, कनड, औरंगाबाद-431104, मोबाईल क.7875461198 रोल न.60920856700423 कठनष ललपीक आयओएन डडजीटल झोन, डचखलठाणा, /50, सीटीआर मॅठनफॅकचररग इंडसट्ीजचया बाजुला, डचखलठाणा एम.आय.डी.सी.

पोलीस ठाणयाचया समोर, एम.आय.डी.सी, औरंगाबाद-431006

ठदनांक-09/02/22

सदर उमेदवाराचे लॉग डडटेलस संशयासपद असून तयाचा पतयेक पश सोडवणयाचा अॅवहरेज टाईम 07 सेकंद ठदसून आला आहे. पठहलया तासामधये नमुद उमेदवाराने 00 पश सोडवले असून दस ु -या तासामधये 163 पश सोडवले आहेत."

5. The learned A.G.P. has tried to convince us that the

first information report is under investigation. We find from the

aforesaid allegation to be investigated against the Petitioner, the

only objection of the MHADA is that in MCQ/objective pattern of

examination, the Petitioner spent average seven seconds for

answering one question. This is in the backdrop of the fact that,

neither the Petitioner left the examination hall even to drink a

drop of water, nor he did go out of the examination hall to visit

the washroom. For 120 minutes, he was in his chair in the

examination hall and it is undisputed that, he himself has

answered the questions.

838.24wp

6. In view of the above, considering the conclusions

drawn by us in our order dated 07/11/2023, this Writ Petition,

filed by Yogesh Madhavrao Jangale, is partly allowed.

7. We direct Respondent No.2/ MHADA, to consider the

candidature of the present Petitioner in their recruitment process

and based on his rank in the order of merit and availability of

posts, he may be considered by following the due procedure

applicable to the said recruitment process, in the event there is no

other legal impediment in the path of this Petitioner.

(Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.) sjk