wp.357.02
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR.
...
WRIT PETITION NO.357/2002 Shri Sadanand Harji Dhargave Aged 42 years, occu: Agril. Labour, R/o Bamni, Po: Palora, Tah.Pauni Dist. Bhandara. ..PETITIONER v e r s u s
1) The State of Maharashtra Rural Development and Water Conservation Department Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2) The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Bhandara.
3) The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Gondia Dist. Gondia.
4) Shri Krushnakumar Wasudeo Nagpure
Gram Sevak,R/o Tumkheda
Tah. & Dist.Gondia,
C/o BDO Panchayat Samiti, Tumsar
Z.P. Bhandara.
5) The Collector, Bhandara
Dist. Bhandara. ..RESPONDENTS
...........................................................................................................................
Mr. A.Z.Jibhkate, Advocate for the petitioner Mrs. Geeta Tiwari, Asst. Govt. Pleader for respondent no.1 Mrs. M.P.Munshi, Advocate for respondent nos.2 and 3 Mr. G.G.Mishra, Advocate for respondent no.4 ............................................................................................................................
CORAM: R.K.DESHPANDE &
MRS . SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ
.
DATED : 23 June, 2017
rd
::: Uploaded on - 30/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/07/2017 00:04:49 :::
wp.357.02
2
ORAL JUDGMENT: (PER R.K.DESHPANDE, J.)
This petition filed in the year 2002 challenges the orders dated 12.10.2000 and 21.05.2001 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for the post of Gramsevak and selecting and appointing the respondent no.4 to the post of Gramsevak from the category of projected affects persons and claims direction to the respondent nos. 2 and 5 to appoint the petitioner in place of the respondent no.4 as Gramsevak from the project affected persons category and pay the petitioner all the consequential benefits, including the arrears of pay from the date of such appointment.
2. The undisputed factual position is to be narrated first : The posts available under Zilla Parishad, Bhandara were required to be filled in from the category of 'project affected' persons for whom 5% reservation was provided. The process for making such appointment was initiated in the year 1999 by calling a list of project affected persons available in the office of Collector, Bhandara. The persons from Bhandara District in the list of project affected persons were required to be preferred over the persons in other Districts and if the persons ::: Uploaded on - 30/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/07/2017 00:04:49 ::: wp.357.02 3 from Bhandara District belonging to Project affected category were not available, then only the persons from other Districts could be considered from such category.
3. On 19.05.1999 a select list of persons in Bhandara District from such category, was prepared. The name of the respondent No.4- Krishnakumar Nagpure was at Sr.No.940. He was interviewed on 06.03.2000 along with other persons from the list provided by Collector, Bhandara. Though he was selected from general/ open category, the order of appointment was not issued to him in spite of there being a vacancy.
4. The petitioner was granted certificate of project affected person on 25.05.1999 and his name was included in the list of project affected persons maintained by Collector, Bhandara, at Sr.No.1140. The petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste category and according to respondent no.2-Zilla Parishad, Bhandara, though the petitioner was selected for appointment he was not appointed to the post which was vacant because the post was for open category candidate. This was communicated to the petitioner by an order dated 12th October, 2000 ::: Uploaded on - 30/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/07/2017 00:04:49 ::: wp.357.02 4 which is the subject matter of challenge in this petition. On 21st May 2001 the petitioner was informed that there was no post lying vacant so as to appoint him as Gramsevak. This order is also the subject-matter of challenge in this petition. Consequently, the issue was also before the State Government as to whether the post is to be filled in from Open category or from Scheduled Castes category.
5. Upon receipt of the directions from the State Government, the respondent no.4 was appointed on the vacant post of Gramsevak in the services of the Zilla Parishad, Bhandara, by an order dated 31.05.2001 pursuant to his selection which was made on 06.03.2000. The petitioner, therefore, also challenges the appointment of the respondent no.4 on the post of Gram Sevak from the category of project affected persons.
6. This matter was admitted on 07.02.2002. Thereafter this Court passed several orders and the order dated 23.01.2013 passed by this Court is reproduced below :-
" Civil Application (CAZ) No. 1909/12 is taken out by the petitioner for grant of out of turn hearing.::: Uploaded on - 30/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/07/2017 00:04:49 :::
wp.357.02 5 The petitioner is challenging the selection of respondent no.4 as Gram Sevak for Gondia District. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2-Zilla Parishad, Bhandara, points out that the petitioner was absent even on last date of hearing. It is further stated that there are no vacancies. Learned Assistant Government Pleader reiterates the same The law on the point is well-settled by the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Rajendra Pagare and another vs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 2009 (4) Mh.L.J. 961.
The petitioner, therefore, has to apply whenever there is an advertisement for effecting recruitment of the persons from project affected category.
Hence, with liberty to the petitioner to apply as and when such an advertisement is issued, we direct to list this petition for further consideration on 18.02.2013 with notice to the parties that the Court may dispose of this petition if otherwise convenient to the Court."
7. It is informed that though the petitioner appeared pursuant to the advertisement issued, he was not selected as not being found in ::: Uploaded on - 30/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/07/2017 00:04:49 ::: wp.357.02 6 merit. We find that though the fact that the petitioner belongs to project affected category is not disputed and he was in possession of the certificate dated 25.05.1999 issued by the competent authority, in view of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Rajendra Pagare and another vs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 2009(4) Mh.L.J.961, it is not possible for us to direct the appointment of the petitioner from such category in any post if lying vacant. The petitioner has to go through the necessary process of selection to be conducted in terms of the aforesaid decision of the Full Bench, cited supra and it is only upon his selection that an appointment can be made. Such a claim of the petitioner for appointment in any vacant post is, therefore, rejected.
8. The contention of Shri Jibhkate, learned counsel for petitioner is that the respondent no.4 was from Gondia District, whereas the petitioner was from Bhandara District and in terms of the policy of the State Government unless a list of project affected persons available in the list with the Collector from Bhandara District is exhausted, no person who is the resident and project affected person belonging to different District can be appointed. He submits that Gondia ::: Uploaded on - 30/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/07/2017 00:04:49 ::: wp.357.02 7 and Bhandara are two distinct Districts and the recruitment being in Bhandara District, the respondent no.4 belonged to Gondia District could not have been preferred in the matter of employment on the post in question as Gramsevak.
9. It is not in dispute that initially Taluqa Gondia was included in District Bhadara and on 10.05.2000, a separate revenue District of Gondia came into existence. Prior to creation of separate Gondia District, a list of project affected persons from Bhandara District was prepared on 19.05.1999 and it included the name of the respondent no.4. The respondent no.4 was interviewed on 06.03.2000 i.e. even prior to creation of Gondia District and hence the said list was operated. In the list of project affected persons maintained by the office of the Collector, Bhandara the name of respondent no.4 was at Sr.No.940, whereas the name of petitioner was at Sr. No. 1140. We, therefore, do not find any substance in the contention raised by Shri Jibhkate, learned counsel for the petitioner that it is the respondent no. 4 who belonged to Gondia District, could not have been preferred over the petitioner for appointment to the post in question. ::: Uploaded on - 30/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/07/2017 00:04:49 :::
wp.357.02 8
10. In view of the above, we do not find any substance in the Petition. The same is therefore dismissed, with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
sahare
::: Uploaded on - 30/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/07/2017 00:04:49 :::