Judicial Review Not Negated In Election Matters Where Level Playing Field Is Impaired By Violence: Supreme Court FIR Registration | Prospective Accused Has Locus Standi To Appeal Against Single Judge's Direction: Supreme Court Executing Deed Claiming Disputed Property Not 'False Document' Without Impersonation; Civil Disputes Can't Be Criminalised: Allahabad High Court Section 24 CPC | Partition Suit Can Be Transferred To High Court To Avoid Inconsistent Findings With Pending Testamentary Proceedings: Bombay High Court Upgraded Junior High Schools Lose Separate Legal Identity; Recruitment Under 1978 Rules Not Maintainable For Resulting Vacancies: Allahabad High Court Section 370 IPC | Consent Of Victim Is Irrelevant For Proving Trafficking; High Court Sustains Conviction Despite Acquittal Under Section 370A(2) Section 307 IPC | Absence Of Bodily Injury Does Not Exclude Offence If Intention Or Knowledge Is Established From Surrounding Circumstances: Delhi High Court Income Tax Reopening | Assessing Officer Cannot Initiate Reassessment Based On Third-Party Allegations Without Establishing Direct Nexus With Assessee: Gujarat High Court Section 294 CrPC | Non-Examination Of Autopsy Doctor Not Fatal To Prosecution When Post-Mortem Report's Genuineness Is Undisputed: Karnataka High Court Section 25 Arms Act | Mere Custody Without Awareness Not An Offence, 'Conscious Possession' Essential: Delhi High Court Quashes FIR Over Single Live Cartridge Section 20 Prevention Of Corruption Act | Statutory Presumption Cannot Be Triggered Without Proof Of Demand; Mere Recovery Insufficient: Himachal Pradesh High Court Article 227 Constitution of India | High Court Cannot Sit In Appeal Over Findings Of Tribunal Under Supervisory Jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Mere Registration Of Will Does Not Dispense With Requirement To Prove Execution Under Section 68 Evidence Act: Madras High Court Insurance Policy Exclusion | Onus To Prove Suicide Can Be Discharged By Circumstantial Evidence And Unexplained Discrepancies In Medical Records: NCDRC Registration Act | Contested Decree Declaring Pre-Existing Rights By Adverse Possession Does Not Require Compulsory Registration Or Stamp Duty: Madhya Pradesh High Court Section 100 Patents Act | Government Empowered To Authorise Manufacture Of Patented Life-Saving Drugs For Non-Commercial Distribution To Patients: Kerala High Court Madras High Court Slaps ₹1 Lakh Cost On Centre Over Botched Prisoner Repatriation Contempt Of Court | Bona Fide Efforts To Verify Credentials Preclude Finding Of 'Wilful Disobedience': Telangana High Court Financial Commissioner Cannot Remand Appointment Of Lambardar Without Finding Perversity In Collector’s Order: Punjab & Haryana High Court Article 226 | High Court Cannot Act As Second Appellate Authority Over Transfer Orders; Judicial Review Permissible Only On Four Limited Grounds: Rajasthan High Court Drugs and Cosmetics Act | Prosecution Must Prove Possession And Lack Of Licence Through Independent Evidence; Failure Of Panch Witnesses Is Fatal: Telangana High Court Section 392 IPC | Appellate Courts Can Reduce Sentence To Period Already Undergone Considering Protracted Litigation And Lack Of Criminal Antecedents: Punjab & Haryana High Court

High Court Quashes Communication and Orders Fresh Appointment in Challenged Selection Process

07 May 2024 2:49 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, has quashed a communication and ordered the issuance of a fresh appointment in a selection process that faced allegations of lack of transparency and illegality. The judgment was pronounced on 7th July 2023 by Justices Mangesh S. Patil and Shailesh P. Brahme.

The petitioner, Vishal Bahiram, had challenged the communication issued by the Divisional Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies and the appointment order given to respondent no. 5. Claiming to be more meritorious, the petitioner sought a reconsideration of his appointment and disciplinary action against the responsible party.

Citing irregularities in the selection process, the court observed, “There is no transparency in the selection of respondent no. 5... No convincing material was produced by the bank which was within its custody to justify the appointment of respondent no. 5” (Para 16). Furthermore, it questioned the deviation from the specified mode of online correspondence and found no reason to serve appointment orders via ordinary post (Para 18).

In its verdict, the court quashed the challenged communication, ordered the issuance of an appointment order in favor of the petitioner, and directed the respondent no. 4/bank to consider the claim of respondent no. 5 for another post. The judgment emphasized the need for transparency and fairness in the selection process.

This ruling highlights the judiciary’s commitment to upholding principles of transparency and fairness in appointments. It serves as a reminder that procedural integrity must be maintained to ensure equal opportunities for all candidates.   

Date of Decision: 07 July, 2023     

Vishal vs State of Maharashtra

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Vishal_Ashok_Bahiram_vs_The_State_Of_Maharashtra_And_7_July_2023_Bomb_HC.pdf"]

Latest Legal News