MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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

07 May 2024 8:19 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