High Court of Bombay Appellate Side Considered Writ Petitions in Maharashtra Public Service Commission Recruitment Matters — Substantive Decision Not Available in Extract. The extract lists multiple writ petitions and interim applications involving individual candidates, the State of Maharashtra, and the Maharashtra Public Service Commission, but contains no legal holdings, sections, or operative orders.

Case Note & Summary

The provided judgment text is a partial reproduction of the cause title and party array from an order of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Appellate Side, dated 22 December 2023, bearing the citation 2023:BHC-AS:38939-DB. The extract lists five writ petitions: Writ Petition No. 2722 of 2023 with Interim Application No. 14323 of 2023; Writ Petition No. 2859 of 2023 with Interim Application No. 13079 of 2023; Writ Petition No. 2861 of 2023 with Interim Application No. 25732 of 2023; Writ Petition No. 2862 of 2023; and Writ Petition No. 2891 of 2023 with Interim Application No. 2427 of 2923. The first petition names three individual petitioners—Shri Akshay Ashok Chaudhari, Shri Rahul Narayan Bagal, and Shri Vaibhav Subhash Deshmukh—all described as civil engineers, and two respondents: the Government of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, and the Maharashtra Public Service Commission through its Secretary/Chairman. Subsequent petitions include a multitude of individual candidates, some described as students or service-holders, and respondents such as the State of Maharashtra through the General Administration Department and the Revenue and Forest Department, the Maharashtra Public Service Commission, and the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest. The listed individuals span various districts in Maharashtra, including Solapur, Pandharpur, Pune, Dhule, Kolhapur, Amravati, Nagpur, Buldhana, Beed, Latur, Sangli, Nashik, Yavatmal, Jalna, Ratnagiri, Washim, Jalgaon, Nanded, Gadchiroli, Satara, Ahmednagar, Hingoli, Thane, and others. The presence of the Maharashtra Public Service Commission and the Forest Department suggests that the petitions may relate to recruitment or selection processes, but the extract does not state the specific grievances or reliefs sought. No legal provisions, statutory references, case law, or procedural history are provided. The court's composition, names of presiding judges, and advocates are not mentioned. The document contains no reasoning, findings, or operative directions. Accordingly, the extract is insufficient to identify the issues of law, the arguments advanced, the ratio decidendi, or the final decision. All substantive legal fields have been marked as not mentioned, and the only reliable information is the case identification data and the list of parties. This summary is limited to the content actually present in the provided text and does not infer any facts beyond the party names, petition numbers, date, and citation.

Issue of Consideration