NITIN KEDU RAJOLE vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. GOVT. PLEADER (A.S.) AND ORS

Judgment text excerpt

2025:BHC-AS:53056-DB 6.WP15859_ 2022.DOC Vidya Amin IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 15859 OF 2022 Nitin Kedu Rajole ... Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra, through GP & Ors. ... Respondents _______ Mr. Vaibhav D. Kadam a/w. Mr. Shrinath Badade, Ms. Vedika Bhoir and Rayyan Shah for the petitioner. Ms. M.P. Thakur, AGP for respondent nos. 1 to 3. Ms. Amita Chaware for respondent nos. 4 and 5. _______ CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI & AARTI SATHE, JJ. DATE: 3 December 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per G.S. Kulkarni, J.) 1. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India looked from any angle is thoroughly misconceived and not maintainable. The petitioner participated in the appointment process initiated by respondent no. 4-Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Ltd., wherein one of the posts which were notified to be filled up was the post of Junior Laboratory Chemist. Advertisement No. 04-2010 in question contained a specific clause, being Clause no. (iii) which was to the effect that preference would be given to the project affected persons whose lands were acquired for Mahagenco Projects for certain posts, which included the said post. The petitioner submitted an application as project affected person. However, the petitioner did not submit any documents to show that he was a project affected persons, therefore, he was issued a notice that in the absence of such documents, the appointment which was made in his favour, namely, Page 1 of 4 6.WP15859_ 2022.DOC appointment order dated 11 November, 2011 be not cancelled. Responding to such communication, the petitioner submitted a Land Acquisition Certificate dated 7 September, 2013 issued by the Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), which only certifies that