V.K.TAHILRAMANI, M.S.KARNIK
Vinod Dadasaheb Dhore – Appellant
Versus
Secretary Maharashtra Public Service Commission, Mumbai – Respondent
M.S. KARNIK, J.
Rule. Rule heard forthwith by consent of parties.
2. By this petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the challenge of the petitioners is to an order dated 2nd November, 2017 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal” for short) in O.A.No.524 of 2016 with O.A.No.841 of 2017.
3. The petitioners filed O.A.No.841 of 2017 before the Tribunal. The petitioners are working on the post of Police Constables in the Police Force of the Government of Maharashtra. The respondent No.1 - The Maharashtra Public Service Commission (“MPSC” for short) conducts the “Limited Competitive Departmental Examination” (hereinafter referred to as “the said examination”) for the post of Police Sub-Inspector . Through the channel of the said examination the petitioners are seeking entry in the higher post i.e. Police Sub-Inspector . Having applied pursuant to the advertisement and upon passing the written examination, the petitioners are included in the select list of the Open merit category candidates. The grievance of the petitioners is that the select list also includes those candidates (viz. respondent Nos. 5
R.K. Sabharwal & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors.
Jitendra Kumar Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
Indira Sawhney etc. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
Inder Parkash Gupta Vs. State of J&K and others
Union of India & Ors. Vs. Virpal Singh Chauhan etc.
Vikas Sankhala and others Vs. Vikas Kumar Agarwal and others
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.