2. civil wp 13627-16.doc
RMA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 13627 OF 2016
Firoj Tayyabji Shaikh .. Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
...................
Appearances
Mr. Veerdhawal Deshmukh i/by
Mr. V.S. Kapse Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. N.C. Walimbe AGP for the Respondents / State
...................
CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI &
DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 25, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT [PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] :
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGP for the State / Respondents.
2. Rule. By consent of the parties, rule is made returnable forthwith and the matter is heard finally.
jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 8
::: Uploaded on - 10/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2017 22:58:28 :::
2. civil wp 13627-16.doc
3. The petitioner had applied for the post of Police Sub- Inspector from the OBC sports category. His application was rejected, hence, he preferred Original Application i.e O.A. No. 843 of 2015 before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai. The said O.A. came to be dismissed, hence, this petition.
4. The petitioner had applied for the post of PSI from the OBC sports category. The case of the petitioner is that he had cleared the various tests and he fulfilled all the requirements of the said post, yet he was not selected, which was an erroneous decision.
5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner in his on-line application had filled the sport of 'Tug of War' in which he stood 3rd and had got bronze medal, hence, he was eligible. It is the case of the respondents that in order to be eligible from the OBC Sports category, the candidate should have participated in sport at the State level jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 8 ::: Uploaded on - 10/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2017 22:58:28 :::
2. civil wp 13627-16.doc competition and it should also be in accordance with the relevant G.R. of 2005. Both the sides have placed reliance on the G.R. dated 30.4.2005. In the said G.R., eligibility regarding sports category has been set out. Admittedly the concerned clause in the present case is clause 4(c). This clause states that the candidate should have appeared individually or in a team sport in which he should have stood 1st, 2nd or 3rd or obtained Gold, Silver or Bronze medal at State Level Competition. It is further stated in the said clause that the State Competitions should have been conducted by the Maharashtra Olympic Association or by an authorized State Association which is affiliated to the Maharashtra Olympic Association.
6. It is the case of the respondents that in the on-line application, the petitioner had only filled in the sport of Karate and the same did not fall within the G.R. dated 30.4.2005. Even according to the petitioner, his participation in 'karate' is not covered by G.R. of 2005. However, jfoanz vkacsjdj 3 of 8 ::: Uploaded on - 10/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2017 22:58:28 :::
2. civil wp 13627-16.doc according to the petitioner, he has also qualified in the sport of 'Tug of War' in which he had obtained 3rd place or bronze medal which is covered by G.R. of 2005. It is stated that he produced the said certificate at the time of interview and hence, it ought to have been considered. It is his further case that he mentioned this sport also in his on-line application. However, according to the respondents, in the on-line application, the petitioner had not mentioned the sport of 'Tug of War'.
7. Thus, the crux of the matter is as to whether the petitioner had applied for the post of PSI stating the sport of 'Tug of War' in his on-line application. As far as Karate is concerned, there is no dispute that it was not something that could be a plus point in the case of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner showed us the copy of on-line application where in the category of sports, both Karate as well as 'Tug of War' have been mentioned. However, the similar document i.e on-line application of the petitioner has jfoanz vkacsjdj 4 of 8 ::: Uploaded on - 10/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2017 22:58:28 :::
2. civil wp 13627-16.doc been annexed to the affidavit of Shri. Deepak Urade, Under Secretary in the office of respondent No. 2 - Maharashtra Public Service Commission which shows that the petitioner has not mentioned the sport of 'Tug of War' in the on-line application.
8. It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that unless the petitioner had mentioned both the sports, he would not have been allowed to go upto the stage of production of documents for verification and that is the vindication of the stand of the petitioner. It is not possible for us to accept the submission made on behalf of the petitioner. Various documents on behalf of the MPSC as well as the contents of the affidavits filed before the Tribunal and before us show that while submitting the applications, the documents are not required to be filed. They are only required to be submitted at the time of verification thereof which is at the time of interview and by this time, various tests have already been cleared.
jfoanz vkacsjdj 5 of 8
::: Uploaded on - 10/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2017 22:58:28 :::
2. civil wp 13627-16.doc
9. We are thus faced with some kind of word against word scenario. It is the categorical case of the petitioner that he has stated the sport of 'Tug of War' in his on-line application whereas it is the categorical case of respondent - MPSC that the petitioner had not stated the sport of 'Tug of War' in his on-line application. In such case, we find it necessary to refer to some documents. One of the documents is the Original Application filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal. In paragraph 9 of page 9 of the Original Application, the applicant has clearly mentioned that in the relevant column of the on-line application form, he had mentioned the sport of Karate only because of the fact that he obtained Gold medal i.e 1st place in the said sport. Thereafter, in paragraph 14 of the Original Application, he has stated that his candidature was rejected only on the ground that he had not submitted the sport certificate of 'Tug of War'. We reproduce the relevant portion from paragraph 14 of the Original Application which reads as under:-
jfoanz vkacsjdj 6 of 8
::: Uploaded on - 10/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2017 22:58:28 :::
2. civil wp 13627-16.doc
"...................The Applicant states that said reason is ex-facie illegal as well as factually incorrect. It is true fact as well as firm contention of the Applicant that on 19.01.2012 (date of interview) the Applicant has submitted his sport certificate of 'Tug of War' sport along with other sport certificates. However, the Respondent No. 2 deliberately neglected the said certificate by taking disadvantage of the fact that in the relevant column of on-line application form, the Applicant mentioned his game as 'Karate'. The Applicant states that only because of the said fact, the candidature of the Applicant cannot be rejected."
[Emphasis supplied]
10. Again in paragraph 19 of the Original Application, it is mentioned that though the applicant (petitioner) mentioned the name of one game i.e Karate in the application form, his certificate of 'Tug of War' was required to be considered for his selection for sports quota. Thus, the petitioner's own statement made in the original application supports the case of the respondent - MPSC that in the on-line application form, the petitioner did not mention the sport of 'Tug of War'. We would also like to add that from Exh. B to the affidavit-in- rejoinder, it would appear that on 7.5.2015, the petitioner had lost the original copy of the on-line application form along with some other documents for which he made a police complaint. If that was so, it is not possible to jfoanz vkacsjdj 7 of 8 ::: Uploaded on - 10/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2017 22:58:28 :::
2. civil wp 13627-16.doc comprehend as to how the petitioner could still get the copy of the on-line application form which he submitted before the Tribunal as well as before us. As stated earlier, there is nothing on record to reach the conclusion that respondent - MPSC would play such tricks and games as is alleged by the petitioner. As stated earlier, the petitioner himself in his Original Application at several places has admitted that in his on-line application form, he had filled in only the sport of Karate. In such case, we cannot find any error in the action of the respondents of rejecting the application of the petitioner for the post of PSI.
9. In view of above, we find no merit in this petition. Rule is discharged.
[ DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J ] [ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. ] jfoanz vkacsjdj 8 of 8 ::: Uploaded on - 10/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2017 22:58:28 :::