Writ Petition No. 6551 of 2015. Case: Nitin Vs Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Limited. High Court of Bombay (India)

Case NumberWrit Petition No. 6551 of 2015
CounselFor Appellant: M.V. Mohokar, Advocate and For Respondents: A.D. Mohgaonkar, Advocate
JudgesB. P. Dharmadhikari and P. N. Deshmukh, JJ.
IssueService Law
Judgement DateApril 20, 2016
CourtHigh Court of Bombay (India)

Judgment:

B. P. Dharmadhikari, J.

  1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of Shri Mohokar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Mohgaonkar, learned counsel for the respondent.

  2. Shri Mohokar, learned counsel for the petitioner states that 10.09.2014 was the last date for submission of application form, however, on that date result of Trade Test conducted by the Directorate of Vocational Education and Training, Maharashtra State, Mumbai, was not declared and hence the petitioner could not file on-line application. The respondent extended last date to 20.09.2014. The result of Trade Test was declared on that day only and the petitioner immediately sent his on-line application. The application was within time and was found in accordance with law, therefore, the petitioner was permitted to participate in selection process but ultimately on the ground that his application is belated, his candidature has been turned down. There were total 17 vacancies and only 14 vacancies can be filled in and three vacancies are still available.

  3. He invites our attention to the orders of this Court dated 04.12.2015 to urge that one post of Technician Grade III from the OBC category has been directed to be kept vacant and it is accordingly lying vacant even today.

  4. Shri Mohgaonkar, learned counsel is relying upon reply affidavit. He submits that the last date was not extended for candidates from open market like the petitioner. Certain candidates were undergoing in-house training at three Training Centres opened by the respondent and as those Training Centres were started on different dates, to facilitate the trainees therefrom, last date was extended only for those candidates and in relation to certain Trades. He submits that accordingly the agency to which recruitment was handed over was informed but that agency did not publish on-line the complete text and hence under wrong impression that the date 20.09.2014 was the last date for submission of application, the petitioner and one more candidate submitted their application. The learned counsel states that the other candidate has approached Aurangabad Bench and his petition is pending. He further contends that in on-line application form submitted by the petitioner on 20.09.2014, date of passing has been stated as 10.09.2014 and marks obtained are also disclosed as 534 i.e. 76.29%. He submits that this is incorrect information, as the result was actually declared...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT