Bombay High Court
Kapil Prakash Hiwralay And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 18 July, 2016
Bench: S.S. Shinde
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 2908 OF 2016
1. Sangram s/o Ramdas Gholve,
age : 25 years, Occ.: Nil.
R/o Gangpati Nagar, Behind Saraswati,
School, Beed Tq. & Dist. Beed
2. Neeraj S/o Arjun Gangurde,
age : 24 years, Occ.: Nil.
R/o 50, Indraneel Ram Nagar,
Dahivel Tq. Sakri Dist.Dhule
3. Ajinkya s/o Shyam Wankhade,
age : 26 years, Occ.: Nil.
R/o Flat No. 103, Kamal Plaza,
Farande, Nagar Nanded,
Tq. and Dist. Nanded
4. Mahesh S/o Gunwant Morale,
Age Major years, Occ.: Nil,
R/o Wadjai, Tq. Washi
Dist. Osmanabad .. PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary,
Water Resources Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32
2. The President,
State Level Direct Recruitment
Selection Committee, Nagpur and
Executive Director (VPVM) Nagpur .. RESPONDENTS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 2776 OF 2016
1. Mahesh s/o Kalyan Khose,
age 29 years, Occ. Student,
R/o. Girvali, Post Pimparkhed,
::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2016 23:58:50 :::
2 wp2908-2016-group
Tal.Jamkhed, Dist. Ahmednagar
2. Angad s/o Vinayak Morale,
age : 27 years,
Occu.: Student,
R/o. Jamkhed Road,
Ahmednagar,
Dist. Ahmednagar
3. Ashutosh s/o Adinath Pachpute,
age : 26 years,
Occu.: Student,
R/o. Kashti,
Tal. Shrigonda,
Dist. Ahmednagar
4.
Rajendra s/o Subhash Khamkar,
age 26 years,
Occ.: Student,
R/o Ghargaon,
Tal. Shrigonda,
Dist. Ahmednagar
5. Prashant s/o Madhukar Jagtap,
age : 25 years,
Occu.: Student,
R/o Shrigonda Factory,
Tal. Shrigonda,
Dist. Ahmednagar
6. Ajinkya s/o Machindra Bansode,
Age : 24 years,
Occu.: Student,
R/o. Bhawaninagar,
Tal. Indapur,
Dist. Pune
7. Dnyandeo s/o Pandurang Raykar,
Age : 27 years,
Occu: Student,
::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2016 23:58:50 :::
3 wp2908-2016-group
R/o. Hangewadi,
Tal. Shrigonda,
Dist. Ahmednagar
8. Mahendra s/o Macchindra Pachpute,
age : 25 years,
Occu.: Student,
R/o. Shrigonda Factory,
Tal. Shrigonda,
Dist. Ahmednagar,
9. Vishal s/o Dnyandeo Raskar,
age : 25 years,
Occ.: Student,
R/o Shrigonda Factory,
Tal. Shrigonda,
Dist. Ahmednagar
10. Mahesh s/o Kakasaheb Yadav,
age : 25 years,
Occu.: Student,
R/o Shrigonda Factory,
Tal. Shrigonda,
Dist. Ahmednagar
11. Azhaurddin s/o Nabisab Hamnabad,
age : 28 years,
Occu.: Lecturer,
R/o. Daund,
Tal. Daund, Dist. Pune
12. Pranav s/o Vasantrao Saste,
Age : 23 years,
Occu.: Student,
R/o Kashti,
Tal. Shrigonda,
Dist. Ahmednagar
::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2016 23:58:50 :::
4 wp2908-2016-group
13. Hrishikesh s/o Dipak Yadav,
age : 26 years,
Occu. Student,
R/o Kolhapur,
Tal. Dist. Kolhapur
14. Sonal s/o Sukhdev Besekar,
age : 27 years,
Occu.: Student,
R/o Tilaknagar,
Bramhapuri,
Dist. Chandrapur
15. Rajaram s/o Bhiva Shinde,
age : 28 years,
Occu.: Student,
R/o. Ranjali,
Tal. Man,
Dist. Satara .. PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through
Chief Secretary,
Government of Maharashtra
Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 32
2. The Secretary,
Department of Water Resources,
Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 32
3. The President,
State level Direct Recruitment
Selection Committee,
Nagpur ..RESPONDENTS
::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2016 23:58:50 :::
5 wp2908-2016-group
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 2781 OF 2016
1. Deepak Vasantrao Galande,
Age : 27 years,
Occ. Unemployed,
r/o MIDC,
Latur, Tq. Latur
District Latur
2. Shivanand Nagnath Salunke,
Age : 28 years, Occu.: Unemployed,
r/o In front M.S. Bidve
Engineering College,
Pakhar Sangvi Barshi Road Latur,
Tq. Latur, District Latur
3.
Abhijit Arvindrao Bhosale
Age : 28 years, Occu.: Unemployed,
R/o Sayhyadri Building Narayanagar,
Latur
4. Vaibhav Jivanrao Patil,
Age : 25 years, Occ.: Unemployed,
R/o At Walswangi Post Shirol,
Tq. Nilanga District Latur
5. Dattaji Balaji Patil,
Age : 25 years, Occu.: Unemployed,
r/o Shirsal Lamjana Tq. Latur,
Dist. Latur
6. Kiran Salojirao Baraskar,
Age : 23 years, Occu.: Unemployed,
r/o Behind Tulshidas Mandir Bhoi Galli,
Latur, Tq. and Dist. Latur
7. Niranjan Navnath Mhuske,
Age : 25 years, Occu.: Unemployed,
R/o. At Post Kava, Tal. Ausa,
Dist. Latur
8. Shreyash Vinayak Bagal,
Age : 25 years, Occu.: Unemployed,
R/o.: Main road, Shivaji Chowk,
Murud Bk. District Latur
::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2016 23:58:50 :::
6 wp2908-2016-group
9. Ganesh s/o Kiran Dixit
Age : 26 years Occu.: Unemployed,
R/o.: Shubhshri Nathnagar, Ausa,
Tal. Ausa District Latur,
10. Manohar Gabaru Pawar,
Age : 23 years, Occu.: Unemployed,
r/o At post Odhare Tq. Chalisgaon,
Dist. Jalgaon
11. Abhiman Annasaheb Sanap,
Age : 22 years, Occu.: Unemployed,
r/o At post Tagadgaon, Tq. Shirur,
Dist. Beed,
12. Sudhir Dinkarrao Shinde,
Age :29 years, Occu.: Unemployed,
R/o C/o. Sandeep Dattaray Kankhar,
Jaibhavaninagar, Aurangabad
Tq. Dist. Aurangabad
13. Amol Anna Bhople,
Age 24 years, Occu.: Unemployed,
r/o. Ramkrupa Colony, Mahada,
In front of Pratapnagar Dargah Road,
Aurangabad.
Tq. District Aurangabad .. PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Water Conservation & Irrigation
Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai-32
2. The State-Level Direct
Employment Selection Committee/
jkT;Lrjh; ljGlsok fuoM lferh] ukxiwj,
Nagpur (MS),
through it's President .. RESPONDENTS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 2772 of 2016
::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2016 23:58:50 :::
7 wp2908-2016-group
1. Jayant s/o Bhaskar Patil,
Age : 27 years, Occu.: Nil,
R/o. A-1, Aryan Residency,
Shambhhoo Nagar, Aurangabad
2. Sumeet s/o Sanjay Ragade,
Age : 25 years, Occu.: Education,
R/o Vinay Colony, Plot No. 87,
CIDCO, N-2, Aurangabad.
3. Sachini s/o Ashok Pendharkar,
Age : 24 years, Occu.: Education,
R/o. Plot No. 25, New Shantiniketan
Colony, Aurangabad
4. Rohitkumar s/o Bhausaheb Ghuge,
Age : 24 years, Occu.: Education,
R/o. Shastri Nagar, Aurangabad
5. Bhgyashri D/o Bhimrao Kawale,
Age : 24 years, Occ.: Education,
R/o Jyotiba Nagar, Taroda (Bk.),
Near Raj Corner, Nanded,
Tal. and Dist. Nanded
6. Nitin s/o Sakharam Lahane,
Age : 25 years, Occu.: Nil,
R/o Ayodhya Nagar, CIDCO,
N-7, Aurangabad
7. Tanmay s/o Shashikant Kulkarni,
Age 23 years, Occu.: Nil,
R/o D-75, Vinay Colony, N-2,
CIDCO, Aurangabad
8. Kiran s/o Bhagawat Dhokle,
Age : 26 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o. Osmanapura,
Aurangabad
9. Shirishkumar s/o Chintamanrao Jadhav,
Age 29 years, Occ.: Service,
r/o House No. 300, MHADA Colony,
N-2, CIDCO, Aurangabad
::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2016 23:58:50 :::
8 wp2908-2016-group
10. Sachin s/o Bansidhar Sangle,
Age 23 years, Occu.: Nil,
R/o. Patoda, Tal. Patoda,
Dist. Beed
11. Amit s/o Sanjiv Mahajan,
Age : 24 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o Swami Narayan Nagar,
Savada, Tal. Raver, Dist. Jalgaon
12. Sumit s/o Shivaji Surushe,
Age : 25 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o CIDCO, N-4, Aurangabad
13. Parag s/o Bhanudas Mahajan,
Age : 27 years, Occu.: Nil,
R/o Ganesh Nagar, Nhavi,
Tal. Yawal, District Jalgaon
14. Ravikiran s/o Sahebrao Surwase,
Age : 25 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o Girwalkar Nagar, Barshi Road,
Latur, Tal. and Dist. Latur
15. Rupesh s/o Damu Fegade,
Age : 25 years, Occu.: Nil,
r/o. Baherpura, Nhavi,
Tal. Yawal, Dist. Jalgaon
16. Girish s/o Vitthalrao Khedkar,
Age : 25 years, Occu.: Private Service,
R/o Nirmal Nagar, Satkar Colony,
Savedi, Ahmednagar,
Tal. And District Ahmednagar
17. Vikram s/o Ramkisan Khajekar,
Age : 23 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o Beed Bye pass, Near Renuka
Mata Temple, Gut No. 105,
Plot No. 71, Janjira Housing Society,
Satara Parisar, Aurangabad
18. Anand s/o Shahurao Ghorpade,
Age : 23 years, Occu.: Nil,
::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2016 23:58:50 :::
9 wp2908-2016-group
R/o Shriram Nagar, Shivneri Colony,
Beed, Tal. and Dist. Beed
19. Prashik Siddharth Shende,
Age : 23 years, Occ. Nil,
r/o. Khushbu Housing Society,
Plot No. 11, Near Guru Ganesh Nagar,
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad
20. Nitin s/o Govardhan Kolekar,
Age : 23 years, Occ.: Nil,
R/o C-7, 28, Sneha Nagar,
Station Road, Osmanpura,
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabaad
21. Vikram s/o Magan Chaudhary,
Age : 23 years, Occo.Nil,ig
R/o. T-12, Prayap Nagar,
Near Little Wood Nursary School,
Osmanpura, Aurangabad
22. Swati d/o Sahebrao Pagare,
Age : 23 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o Eknath Nagar, Osmanpura,
Aurangabad Dist. Aurangabad
23. Rohini D/o Ravindra Dahifale,
Age : 23 years, Occu.: Nil,
r/o. Koradgaon, Tal. Pathardi,
District Ahmednagar
24. Pushpa d/o Amarsingh Bamm,
Age : 23 years, Occu.:Nil,
r/o.:Plot No. 157,
Shrikrishna Nagar,
Ramtara Road, Shahanoorwadi,
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad
25. Radha d/o Nandkumar Tibhe,
Age : 23 years, Occu.: Nil,
r/o N-9, L-62/3, Shivaji Nagar,
HUDCO, Aurangabad
26. Sachin s/o Sahebrao Gadhe,
Age : 23 years, Occu.: Nil,
::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2016 23:58:51 :::
10 wp2908-2016-group
r/o.: Balegaon, Tal. Umari,
Dist. Nanded
27. Datta s/o Venkatrao Chorband,
Age : 23 years, Occu.: Nil,
R/o. Osmannagar, Tal.Kandhar,
Dist. Nanded
28. Vinayak s/o Babanrao Jatale,
Age : 23 years, Occu. Nil,
r/o Plot No. 15, Town Centre,
CIDCO, Near CIDCO Bus stop,
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad
29. Lakhanpal s/o Shridhar Kendre,
Age : 23 years, Occu. Nil,
r/o Plot No. 118, Laxmi Nagar,
Garkheda, Aurangabad
30. Deepak s/o Rajendra Darade,
Age : 23 years, Occu.: Nil,
R/o. Pagori Pimpalgaon,
Tal. Pathardei,
District Ahmednagar
31. Rucha d/o Shrikrishna Tandale,
Age : 23 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o. Aurangabad,
Dist. Aurangabad. .. PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary,
Water Resources Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32
2. The President,
State Level Direct Recruitment
Selection Committee, Nagpur and
Executive Director (VPVM)
Nagpur ..RESPONDENTS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 2894 OF 2016
::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2016 23:58:51 :::
11 wp2908-2016-group
1. Nikhil s/o Bharat Garudkar,
Age : 23 years, Occu.: Nil,
R/o Mahakali Galli, Tal. Mukhed,
District Nanded
2. Pratik s/o Kevalkumar Sangolkar,
Age : 22 years, Occu.: Nil,
R/o. Near ITI College, Shivaji Road,
Rampuri, Tal. and Dist. Chandrapur,
At present Near Government College,
Opp. Badi Masjid, Osmanpura,
Aurangabad
3. Deepa d/o Shivnath Rahane,
Age : 23 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o. Flat No. E-9, Chinar Garden,
Padegaon, Aurangabad
4. Kailas s/o Bhimrao Dhait,
Age : 23 years, Occ. Nil,
R/o. Changle Nagar, Ambad,
Tal. Ambad, Dist.Jalna
5. Vishnu s/o Tukaram Taur,
Age : 23 years, Occu.: Nil,
R/o. Mauli Niwas, Tilak Mohalla,
Nutan Vasahat, Ambad,
Tal. Ambad, Dist. Jalna.
6. Abhilash s/o Shantappa Patil,
Age : 23 years, Occu.: Nil,
R/o. Chandraratna Niwas,
Beside Samartha Vidyalaya,
Pachod Road, Ambad,
Tal. Ambad, District Jalna.
7. Raju s/o Harichandra Rathod,
Age : 23 years,Occu.: Nil,
R/o. Khanphodi, Tal. Mantha,
District Jalna
8. Nitesh s/o Tukaram Jawadwad,
Ae : 23 years, Occu.: Nil,
R/o.: N-11, Subhashchandra Bose Nagar,
::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2016 23:58:51 :::
12 wp2908-2016-group
Aurangabad
9. Pratik s/o Vijaykumar Mane,
Age : 25 years, Occu.: Nil,
N-12, D-46/13, Swami Vivekanand
Nagar, T.V. Centre, Aurangabad
10. Akash s/o Vikas Sangale,
Age : 23 years, Occu.: Nil,
R/o. Dusarbid, Tal. Sindkhedraja,
District Buldhana, at present
C/o Parvez Shaikh, Sonu Tower,
Nutan Colony, Aurangabad
11. Vikrant s/o Vitthalsing Bahure,
Age : 24 years, Occu.: Education,
R/o Town Centre, CIDCO,
Aurangabad
12. Ajit s/o Balasaheb Kupekar,
Age : 25 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o. Surdi-Sonesangavi,
Tal. Kaij, District Beed
13. Aboli d/o Anand Deshpande,
Age : 23 years, Occu.: Nil,
R/o. Flat No.2, Suman Residency,
Ulkanagari, Aurangabad
14. Amit s/o Vitthalrao Umrajkar,
Age : 23 years, Occu.: Nil,
R/o. N-4, CIDCO, NS-3,
Plot No.2, Aurangabad
15. Sandeep s/o Chokha Bansode,
Age : 34 years, Occu.: Pvt.Service,
R/o. Bhim Nagar, Panchakki,
Aurangabad
16. Sarovarprabhat Raghunath DandAge,
Age : 23 years, Occu.: Nil,
R/o. Plot No.58, Ulkanagari,
Garkheda Parisar, Aurangabad
17. Akash s/o Balaji Yenge,
::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2016 23:58:51 :::
13 wp2908-2016-group
Age : 23 years, Occu.: Nil,
R/o. Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad
18. Dattatraya s/o Pandurang Khade,
Age : 23 years, Occu.: Nil,
R/o. Khadewadi, Tal. and Dist. Beed.
19. Nishant s/o Prabhakar Pagare,
Age : 23 years, Occu.: Nil,
R/o G-22, Tirupati Supreme Enclave,
Near Raiwlay Station, Aurangabad
20. Vaishali d/o Sambhaji Bhuktar,
Age : 30 years, Occu.: Nil,
R/o Plot No. 25, Sangita Colony
Bhavsing Road, Aurangabad
21. Ragini d/o Narayan Anjan,
Age : 23 years, Occu.: Nil,
R/o Shrinagar Colony, Near Gathal Press,
Ambajogai,
Tal. Ambajobai, Dist. Beed
22. Pratapsinh s/o Anil Patil,
Age : 23 years, Occu.: Nil,
R/o Swapnashil, Sinchan Nagar,
Karmala, Tal. Karmala,
District Solapur, at present
A-1, Aryan Residency, Subhash Nagar,
Aurangabad
23. Shashikant s/o Umakant Gudale,
Age : 23 years, Occu.: Nil,
R/o Plot No. 65-4, Shamumarga,
Udgir, Tal. Udgir, Dist. Latur
24. Yogesh s/o Dnyandeo Sakhare,
Age : 23 years, Occu.: Nil,
R/o. Prashant Nagar, Ambajogai,
Tal. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed
25. Vishwajeet s/o Dattatraya Gulbhile,
Age : 23 years, Occu.: Nil,
R/o Prashant Nagar, Ambajogai,
Tal. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed
::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2016 23:58:51 :::
14 wp2908-2016-group
26. Ranjitkumar s/o Shrihari Bhutekar,
Age : 23 years, Occu.: Nil,
R/o Sai Nagar, Osmanabad,
Tal. and District Osmanabad.
27. Kiran s/o Suresh Kesapure,
Age : 23 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o Opp. Nita Printing Press,
Naik Galli, Nehru Road,
Kadrabad Jalna, Dist.Jalna
28. Kishor s/o Bhagwat Sawant,
Age : 23 years, Occu.: Nil,
R/o Ukali, Tal.Mehkar,
District Buldhana, at present
E-52, Gadres House, N-4,
CIDCO, Aurangabad
29. Bhushan s/o Dhananjay Nilekar,
Age : 23 years, Occu.: Nil,
R/o Sarafa Line, Ward No.1,
Durga Chowk, Malegaon,
District Washim, at present
Vinay Colony, D-87, CIDCO,
N-2, Aurangabad, Dist.Aurangabad
30. Anand s/o Shrikantrao Sawant,
Age : 23 years, Occ. Nil,
R/o Behind Vijay Kirana Store,
Main Road, Samata Nagar,
Osmanabad, Dist. Osmanabad
31. Vicky s/o Vasant Ahire,
Age : 23 years, Occu.: Nil
R/o Gorane, Tal. Sindkheda,
Dist. Dhule.
32. Pushpak s/o Anil Sarode,
Age : 24 years, Occu.: Education,
R/o Shivaji Nagar, Raizpur,
Tal. Yawal, District Jalgaon
33. Pankaj s/o Sopan Pawar,
Age : 25 years, Occu.: Service,
::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2016 23:58:51 :::
15 wp2908-2016-group
R/o Near Gajanan Mandir,
Aurangabad ..PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Water Resources Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32
2. The President,
State Level Direct Recruitment
Selection Committee, Nagpur and
Executive Director (VPVM)
Nagpur ..RESPONDENTS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 2907 OF 2016
1. Kapil S/o Prakash Hiwaralay,
Age : 24 years, Occ. Nil,
R/o Plot No. 3, Pethenagar,
Bhausingpura Area, Aurangabad,
Tal. and District Aurangabad
2. Abhijeet S/o Dattatray Kale,
Age : 23 years, Occ. Nil,
R/o Plot No. 25, Vishal Nagar,
Garkheda Parisar, Aurangabad,
Tal. and District Aurangabad6
3. Balaji S/o Sanjay Yelikar,
Age : 24 years, Occ. Nil,
R/o Plot No. 96, N-4, CIDCO,
Parijat Nagar, Aurangabad
4. Parmeshwar S/o Satish Pawar,
Age : 23 years, Occ. Nil,
R/o Bandhuprem Housing Society,
Saigain Naka, Ambajogai,
Tal. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed
5. Pradip S/o Dnyanoba Bedarkar,
Age : 24 years, Occ. Nil,
R/o B-95/2, T.V. Centre, HUDCO,
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad .. PETITIONERS
::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2016 23:58:51 :::
16 wp2908-2016-group
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Water Resources Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32
2. The President,
State Level Direct Recruitment
Selection Committee, Nagpur and
Executive Director (VPVM)
Nagpur ..RESPONDENTS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 2911 OF 2016
Sachin S/o Deorao Georaikar,
Age : 36 years, Occ. Nil,
R/o Plot No. 28, Samta Nagar,
Near Kranti Chowk, Police Station,
Aurangabad,
Tal. and Dist. Aurangabad .. PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Water Resources Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32
2. The President,
State Level Direct Recruitment
Selection Committee, Nagpur and
Executive Director (VPVM)
Nagpur ..RESPONDENTS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 5473 OF 2016
1. Nitin S/o Sakharam Lahane,
Age : 25 years, Occ. Nil,
R/o Ayodhya Nagar, CIDCO,
N-7, Aurangabad
::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2016 23:58:51 :::
17 wp2908-2016-group
2. Sachin S/o Ashok Pendharkar,
Age : 24 years, Occ. Nil,
R/o Plot No. 25,
New Shantiniketan Colony,
Aurangabad
3. Rohitkumar S/o Bhausaheb Ghuge,
Age : 23 years, Occ. Education,
R/o Shastri Nagar, Aurangabad
4. Sumeet S/o Sanjay Ragde,
Age : 25 years, Occ. Education,
R/o Vinay Colony, Plot No.87,
CIDCO, N-2, Aurangabad
5. Jayant S/o Bhaskar Patil,
Age : 27 years, Occ. Nil,
R/o A-1, Aryan Residency,
Shambhoo Nagar, Aurangabad
6. Shirishkumar S/o Chintamanrao Jadhav,
Age : 29 years, Occ. Service,
R/o House No.300, MHADA Colony,
N-2, CIDCO, Aurangabad ..Petitioners
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Public Works Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32
2. The Chief Engineer,
(P.W.D.) Regional Division,
Mumbai
3. The Superintending Engineer (PWD),
Circle, Mumbai
4. The Executive Engineer,
Ekatmikrut Ghatak (P.W.) Division,
2nd Floor, Bandhkam Bhavan,
25, Marzaban Road, Fort,
Mumbai - 400 001 ..Respondents
::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2016 23:58:51 :::
18 wp2908-2016-group
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 5550 OF 2016
1. Vishnu S/o Tukaram Taur,
Age : 24 years, Occ.Nil,
R/o Nutan Vasahat, Ambad,
Tal. Ambad, Dist. Jalna
2. Datta S/o Venkatrao Ghorband,
Age : 25 years, Occ. Nil,
R/o Osman Nagar, Tal. Kandhar,
District Nanded
3. Sachin S/o Sahebrao Gade,
Age : 26 years, Occ.: Nil,
R/o Balegaon, Tal. Umari,
District Nanded
4. Kailas S/o Bhimrao Dait,
Age : 24 years, Occ. Nil,
R/o Changli Nagar, Tal. Ambad
District Jalna.
5. Vidyasagar S/o Shriram Kathar,
Age : 25 years, Occ.Nil,
R/o Plot No. 114, F-Sector,
N-4, CIDCO, Aurangabad
6. Nikhil S/o Bharat Garudkar,
Age 23 years, Occ. Nil,
R/o Mahakali Galli, Tal. Mukhed,
District Nanded
7. Vishal S/o Dattatraya Kadam,
Age : 23 years, Occ. Nil,
R/o Kanheri, Tal. Washi,
District Osmanabad
8. Datta S/o Pandurang Khade,
Age : 25 years, Occ.Nil,
R/o Khadewadi, Tal. Kaij,
District Beed
9. Vinayak S/o Babanrao Jatale,
Age : 30 years, Occ. Nil,
::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2016 23:58:51 :::
19 wp2908-2016-group
R/o Plot No. 15, Town Centre,
CIDCO, Aurangabad
10. Siddeshwar S/o Vaijnath Patil,
Age : 27 years, Occ. Nil,
R/o Plot No. 18, Kala Hanuman Mandir,
Sambhaji Chowk, CIDCO,
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad
11. Snehal D/o Bhujang Bagal,
Age : 23 years, Occ. Nil,
R/o Katri, Tal. Tuljapur,
District Osmanabad
12. Dipak S/o Rajendra Darade,
Age 24 years, Occ. Nil,
R/o Pagori Pimpalgaon,
Tal. Pathardi,
Dist. Ahmednagar ..Petitioners
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Public Works Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32
2. The Chief Engineer,
(P.W.D.) Regional Division,
Mumbai
3. The Superintending Engineer (PWD),
Circle, Mumbai
4. The Executive Engineer,
Ekatmikrut Ghatak (P.W.) Division,
2nd Floor, Bandhkam Bhavan,
25, Marzaban Road, Fort,
Mumbai - 400 001 ..Respondents
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 5589 OF 2016
Sachin S/o Sandipan Sanap,
Age : 25 years, Occ. Service,
::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2016 23:58:51 :::
20 wp2908-2016-group
R/o Tagadgaon, Tal. Shirpur (Kasar),
District Beed ..Petitioner
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Public Works Department,
Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 32
2. The Chief Engineer,
(P.W.D.) Regional Division,
Mumbai
3.
The Superintending Engineer (PWD),
Circle, Mumbai
4. The Executive Engineer,
Ekatmikrut Ghatak (P.W.) Division,
2nd Floor, Bandhkam Bhavan,
25, Marzaban Road, Fort,
Mumbai - 400 001 ..Respondents
----
Mr. S.S. Thombre, Advocate for the petitioner/s in
W.P.Nos. 2908/2016, 2772/2016, 2894/2016, 2907/2016,
2911/2016, 5473/2016, 5550/2016 and 5589/2016
Mr. Shaikh Mazhar A. Jahagirdar, Advocate for the
petitioner/s in W.P.No. 2776/2016
Mr. Madhav C. Ghode, Advocate for the petitioner/s in
W.P.No. 2781/2016
Mr. S.Y. Deopujare, Advocate for respondent No. 2 in
W.P. No. 2908/2016
Mr. A.B. Girase, Government Pleader with Mr. S.K. Kadam
and Mr. A.G. Magare, AGPs, for the respondents/State in
all the writ petitions
----
::: Uploaded on - 19/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2016 23:58:51 :::
21 wp2908-2016-group
CORAM : S.S. SHINDE AND
SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 30TH JUNE, 2016
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 18TH JULY, 2016
JUDGMENT (PER : SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.) :
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the
consent of the learned counsel for the parties, heard
finally.
2.
Since common questions of law and facts are
involved in these writ petitions, they are being decided
by this common judgment.
3. The petitioners who are possessing degrees in
Civil Engineering, have been excluded from the
eligibility for the posts of Junior Engineers (Civil)
(Group-B - Non-Gazetted), since the candidates
possessing Diploma in Civil Engineering for a duration
of three years only have been held eligible for the said
posts. The petitioners have challenged Rule 3 (b) (ii)
of "The Junior Engineer (Civil) (Group-B - Non-Gazetted)
in the Public Works Department and the Irrigation
Department (Recruitment) Rules, 1998", dated 1st January,
22 wp2908-2016-group
1998 (for shot, "the impugned Rule") prescribing the
requisite qualification for the said post as three years
Diploma in Civil Engineering, recognised by the
Government or any other qualification, recognised as
equivalent thereto. They have further challenged the
advertisement dated 15th February, 2016, published by
respondent No. 2 i.e. the President, State Level Direct
Recruitment Selection Committee, Nagpur and Executive
Director (VPVM), Nagpur, calling for the applications
from the eligible candidates possessing the above
mentioned Diploma for filling up 1256 posts of Junior
Engineer (Civil) (Group-B - Non-Gazetted). Some of the
petitioners had filed Original Applications before the
Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal ("MAT", for short)
and sought interim stay to the selection process. The
MAT refused interim stay vide order dated 1st March,
2016. Therefore, the said petitioners, being aggrieved
by the order dated 1st March, 2016, have sought to quash
and set aside that order. The petitioners further
claimed that their applications for the above-said posts
may be directed to be accepted and they may be allowed
to participate in the selection process.
23 wp2908-2016-group
4. Based on the averments made in the applications
and certain advertisements issued by some other
departments/institutions for the posts of Junior
Engineers (Civil), the learned counsel for the
respective petitioners submit that the petitioners are
possessing higher qualification i.e. Bachelor of
Engineering (Civil) than the qualification prescribed
for the above mentioned posts i.e. three years Diploma
in Civil Engineering. According to them, higher
qualification cannot be held to be a disqualification
for the above-said posts. It is stated that the other
departments which have filled up the similar posts have
allowed the degree holders in Engineering (Civil) to
participate in the selection process for the said posts.
The impugned Rule 3 (b) (ii) and the advertisement dated
15th February, 2016, excluding the petitioners-degree
holders in Engineering from being considered for the
posts of Junior Engineers (Civil) (Group-B) (Non-
gazetted), because they are possessing higher
qualification, is arbitrary, unreasonable and
unconstitutional. According to them, the orders passed
by the MAT in Original Application St. Nos. 310, 323,
329 and 331 of 2016 on 1st March, 2016, refusing to grant
24 wp2908-2016-group
the interim relief to stay the selection process for the
above mentioned posts, is not legal, proper and correct.
5. The respondents filed the replies through the
Executive Director, Vidarbha Irrigation Development
Corporation, Nagpur and opposed the petitions. On the
strength of the averments made in these replies, various
Government Resolutions and various Rules, the learned
counsel for the respondents, submits that as per the
Government Resolution dated 16th April, 1984, issued by
the Irrigation Department, Government of Maharashtra,
the Government decided to confer the status of Gazetted
officers on the Junior Engineers working in Irrigation
as well as Public Works Departments. Accordingly, it
was decided that the Junior Engineers holding the
Diploma in Engineering having duration of three years
and having served for five years, the Junior Engineers
possessing Diploma having duration of two years and
having served for seven years and Junior Engineers who
were not possessing even the Diploma in Engineering but
having served for ten years, would be conferred the
status of Gazetted officers. However, the Junior
Engineers possessing Degree in Engineering (B.E.) were
25 wp2908-2016-group
given the said status of Gazetted Officers from day one.
The Junior Engineers possessing degree in Engineering
and the Junior Engineers possessing Diploma or not even
the Diploma but having served for five years, seven
years and ten yeas, respectively, as stated above, were
called "Gazetted Officers - Class-II (Lower Grade)". It
was further decided to divide the cadre of Junior
Engineers into two groups. Accordingly, the Junior
Engineers holding degree were designated as "Assistant
Engineer - Grade-II", while the Junior Engineers who
were holding Diploma or having no Diploma but having
served for the abovementioned period, were designated as
"Sectional Engineers". It was decided that there should
be 25% of the posts of Assistant Engineers - Grade-II
out of the total strength of Junior Engineers. It was
further decided that in future, the candidates holding
degree in Engineering would be appointed by nomination
through the Maharashtra Public Service Commission to the
post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) Grade-II as per the
Maharashtra Service of Engineers - Group-B (Recruitment)
Rules, 1997, dated 16th June, 1997 (for short,
"Recruitment Rule of Degree Holders") made by the
Governor of Maharashtra in exercise of the powers
26 wp2908-2016-group
conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the
Constitution of India. The said Rules, excepting Rule
8, were made applicable with retrospective effect from
1st April, 1981. Likewise on the same day, the
"Sectional Engineer (Civil) - Group-B in the
Maharashtra Service of Engineers (Recruitment) Rules,
1997 (for short, "Recruitment Rules of Diploma Holders")
came to be framed by the Governor of Maharashtra in
exercise of the powers under the proviso to Article 309
of the Constitution, for being applied with
retrospective effect from 1st April, 1981. As per the
Recruitment Rules of Diploma Holders, the appointment to
the said posts were to be made by promotion on the basis
of seniority, subject to fitness, from amongst the
persons holding the posts of Junior Engineers who have
put in not less than five years regular service as such
- if they possess a three year Diploma, seven years
regular service - if they possess the requisite
certificate, and ten years regular service - who are not
possessing either Diploma or requisite certificate.
6. The learned counsel for the respondents further
submits that for filling up the remaining 75% of posts
27 wp2908-2016-group
of Junior Engineers, which were designated as "Junior
Engineer (Civil) Group `B' - Non-gazetted", in order to
extend the Diploma holders an opportunity to get
Government service, "The Junior Engineer (Civil) Group
`B' Non-gazetted in the Public Works Department and the
Irrigation Department (Recruitment) Rules, 1998 (i.e.
"the impugned Rules") dated 1st January, 1998 came to be
framed by the Governor of Maharashtra in exercise of the
powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the
Constitution of India in supersession of all existing
Rules, orders or instruments made in this behalf.
7. The learned counsel for the respondents
submits that as per the Circular dated 16th December,
1998, it was clarified that 25% of the posts out of the
total strength of Junior Engineers would be filled up as
"Assistant Engineer Grade-II Gazetted" by nomination
through Maharashtra Public Service Commission and out of
the remaining 75% posts, 90% of the posts would be
filled up by nomination from amongst the Diploma holders
through the Regional Staff Selection Board, while 10%
out of the said 75% posts would be filled up by
promotion. To cut short, it is the contention of the
28 wp2908-2016-group
learned counsel for the respondents that 25% posts out
of the total strength of Junior Engineers have been
reserved for the candidates holding degrees, while out
of the remaining 75% of the total strength of the Junior
Engineers, 90% pots have been reserved for being filled
up by nomination from amongst the candidates holding
Diploma and the remaining 10% have been earmarked for
the in-service employees to be appointed by promotion.
8.
The learned counsel for the respondents submits
that all the sanctioned posts of Deputy Engineers are
to be filled up through different modes in the ratio
34:66%. The said 34% of the posts of Deputy Engineers
are to be filled up by direct recruitment through the
Maharashtra Public Service Commission from the degree
holders who are designated as Assistant Engineers-I, for
which Diploma holders are not entitled to apply. 33%
posts out of the remaining 66% posts of Deputy Engineers
are reserved for being filled up from amongst the Degree
holders serving for a minimum period of three years as
Assistant Engineers-II by promotion. The posts of
Assistant Executive Engineer and Assistant Engineer-I,
are to be filled up by nomination through Maharashtra
29 wp2908-2016-group
Public Service Commission from amongst the candidates
holding Degree in Engineering. For all these posts, the
Diploma holders in Engineering cannot be considered. He
submits that considering the various avenues for being
selected by nomination as well as by promotion available
to the candidates holding Degrees in Engineering and
with a view to extend sufficient opportunity to the
holders of Diplomas in Engineering, who otherwise would
not be entitled to compete for the posts which are
exclusively meant for the candidates holding Degrees in
Engineering, as stated above, 25% of posts at the entry
level came to be reserved for the candidates holding the
Degree in Engineering and the remaining 75% of posts
came to be reserved for the candidates holding Diploma
in Engineering (out of which 90% posts were to be filled
up by nomination and 10% by promotion). He submits that
this classification is quite reasonable. He further
submits that the Degree in Engineering cannot be held to
be the higher qualification of Diploma in Engineering,
in the sense that for acquiring the Degree in
Engineering, it is not necessary that one should possess
a Diploma in Engineering. He submits that the
petitioners who are holding Degree in Engineering are
30 wp2908-2016-group
not eligible to apply for the posts of Junior Engineer
(Civil) (Group-B - Non-Gazetted), due to the above
mentioned reasonable classification. He, therefore,
prays that the writ petitions may be dismissed.
9. After considering the rival contentions of the
learned counsel for the parties as well as the
Government circulars and resolutions produced on record
with reference to the pleadings of the parties, the
picture that emerges is that out of the total strength
of Junior Engineers, 25% have been earmarked for being
filled up by nomination through the Maharashtra Public
Service Commission from amongst the candidates holding
Degree in Civil Engineering. The candidates so selected
would get the status of gazetted officer from day one
and would be called "Assistant Engineer - Grade-II. Out
of the remaining 75% of posts, 90% of posts are to be
filled up by nomination through the Regional Staff
Selection Board from amongst the candidates holding
three years Diplomas in Civil Engineering, recognised by
the Government or any other qualification equivalent
thereto, recognised by the Government in view of the
impugned Rule 3 (b) (ii) and 10% posts would be filled
31 wp2908-2016-group
up by promotion from amongst the eligible Engineering
Assistants having served as such for not less than three
years. The said Junior Engineers were to be designated
as "Junior Engineer (Civil) Group-B Non-gazetted". From
this factual position, it is clear that the candidates
holding the Degrees in Civil Engineering have not been
totally ignored for being considered for the posts of
Junior Engineers. In fact, they have been given 25% of
posts having Gazetted status and would stand on a higher
pedestal as compared to the position of the Junior
Engineers - Non-gazetted from the quota of 75% of posts.
Moreover, the candidates holding the Degrees in Civil
Engineering would be eligible for being considered by
nomination to the posts of Assistant Engineer-I and
Assistant Executive Engineer, to which the candidates
holding the Diplomas in Engineering would not be
eligible. It is, thus, clear that the petitioners/
holders of Degrees in Engineering cannot be said to have
been denied the opportunity to apply for the post of
Junior Engineer (Civil) Group-B (Non-gazetted) only
because they are holding Degrees in Civil Engineering.
As a matter of fact, by classifying the posts of Junior
Engineers (Civil) into two groups, the candidates
32 wp2908-2016-group
holding Degrees in Civil Engineering have been given 25%
of posts to which the candidates holding the Diploma are
not entitled to be considered. In order to extend an
opportunity of Government service to the candidates
holding Diploma in Civil Engineering, out of the
remaining 75% posts, 90% of posts have been earmarked
for them to which the candidates holding the Degrees in
Civil Engineering would not be entitled to apply as per
the impugned Rule 3 (b) (ii).
10. It is strange to note that the petitioners did
not at all whisper about reservation of 25% of posts of
Junior Engineers for the candidates holding the Degrees
in Civil Engineering as provided in the Government
Resolution dated 16th April, 1984. When the petitioners
are claiming the extraordinary relief under the writ
jurisdiction of this Court, it was expected of them to
disclose all the material facts in their petitions.
However, it seems that the petitioners have totally
suppressed the fact that out of the total strength of
Junior Engineers, 25% of posts have been reserved for
the candidates holding Degree in Civil Engineering. They
have further kept it undisclosed that there are
33 wp2908-2016-group
additional avenues available to them in the Public Works
Department and Irrigation Department for being
considered for the posts of Assistant Engineer-I and
Assistant Executive Engineer, which posts are to be
filled up to the extent of 34% and 40%, respectively by
nomination through the Maharashtra Public Service
Commission, to which the candidates holding Diplomas
would not be eligible. The petitioners have created a
picture as if they have been totally deprived of the
opportunity of being considered for the posts of Junior
Engineers, which has been washed out by the contents of
the replies filed on behalf of the respondents.
11. Now the question would be whether the
classification of the posts as has been done by the
respondents is reasonable in the sense that it would not
infringe the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India. Here, a reference may be
conveniently made to the judgment in the case of Alok
Kumar Misra and others Vs. State of U.P. and others
MANU/UP/0876/2016, delivered on 2nd May, 2016 by the High
Court of Allahabad, the facts whereof are almost
identical to that of the present case. In that case, an
34 wp2908-2016-group
advertisement was issued for holding a combined
selection for the posts of Junior Engineers in various
fields of Engineering, such as Civil, Mechanical and
Electrical, for various Departments and Corporations
under the State of U.P. The terms and conditions of
recruitment to those posts were governed by the Rules
made under the proviso of Article 309 of the
Constitution of India. The qualification prescribed for
selection and appointment to the posts of Junior
Engineers referred to therein was Diplomas in the
respective fields of Engineering. In view of Rule 8 of
the Uttar Pradesh Public Works Department Junior
Engineer (Civil) (Group-`C') Service Rules, 2014 also,
the requisite educational qualification for the post of
Junior Engineer was that the candidate must possess
three years Diploma in Civil Engineering from the Board
of Technical Education, Uttar Pradesh or a qualification
recognised by the Government as equivalent thereto. The
petitioners therein relying upon the decisions in Jyoti
K.K. and others Vs. Kerala Public Service Commission and
others 2010 (15) SCC 596, State of Haryana and another
Vs. Abdul Gaffar Khan and another 2006 (11) SCC 153 and
Ajay Kumar Uttam Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and
35 wp2908-2016-group
others SWP No. 2670 of 2001, contended that they being
Degree holders in Engineering, which is a higher
qualification in the same faculty/stream of Engineering,
are presupposed to possess the lower qualification of
Diploma and therefore, they are fully eligible for being
considered in the selection in question, but the
opposite parties, even after having allowed them to
appear in the written examination and having called them
for interview, orally debarred them from appearing
therein on the date of interview, which is not
sustainable in the eye of law. In that case, the Public
Information Officer of the Commission, in response to
the requisition made under the Right to Information Act,
had informed that a Degree holder was eligible for being
considered for selection. It was pointed out by the
petitioners therein that in the previous years, the
Degree holders were permitted to appear for the
examination for the post of Junior Engineer held by the
Subordinate Service Selection Commission as also the
Public Service Commission. The learned counsel
appearing for the Commission, in that case, had
contended that the reliance placed upon the judgments
referred to therein by the petitioners was misconceived
36 wp2908-2016-group
as the said judgments were based upon the language used
in the Rules applicable therein. He also relied upon
the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases
of State of Punjab and others Vs. Anita and others 2015
(2) SCC 170, P.M. Latha and another Vs. State of Kerla
and others 2003 (3) SCC 541 and Yogesh Kumar and others
Vs. Government of NCT, Delhi and others 2003 (3) SCC
548, to rebut the contentions made on behalf of the
petitioners therein and stated that the decisions relied
upon by him have already been considered in the
aforesaid decisions.
12. After considering the rival contentions as well
as the case law cited by the contesting parties, in
support of their respective contentions, the learned
Judge dismissed the petitions holding that the
petitioners cannot be presumed to be possessing the
lower qualification of Diploma in Engineering as in
order to possess a Degree in Engineering, it is not
necessary to first of all pass or possess a Diploma in
Engineering. In paragraph No. 21 of the judgment, the
learned Judge quoted the following two paragraphs from
the judgment delivered by the Uttarakhand High Court in
37 wp2908-2016-group
Writ Petition No. 643 (SS) of 2015 in the matter of
Vikas Kumar and others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and
others and connected petitions, which would justify
earmarking certain posts for the candidates holding the
Diploma in Engineering only.
"But in the present controversy, a degree
education in Civil, Mechanical or Electrical
Engineering, by no stretch of imagination, can
be attributed to the effect that the candidate
had attained the diploma qualification in that
stream because for taking admission in the
Bachelors Course does not envisage the
attaining of the diploma qualification as a
pre-requisite. So, holding the diploma cannot
be equated with holding of the degree in the
engineering stream. The exception can be made
even in such situation if the rules of the
recruitment contemplate to that effect and it
was the situation probably in the Jyoti K.K.
and others case (supra) where Kerala State and
Sub-Ordinate Service Rules, 1956 had such
provision, but here, in Uttarakhand, the Rules
have been enacted in 2003 and there is no such
provision analogous to the Rules of Kerala.
That apart, if a degree holder in a particular
stream will always exclude the diploma holder
in that stream then the scope to get employment
for the diploma holders will always be very
little if not closed altogether because where a
degree and diploma holders both are permitted
to attend the same examination without any
discrimination then in all probabilities, the
degree holders will always take lead as against
the diploma holders. So, the opportunity to
get a government job will almost be closed to
the diploma holders and in other words the
38 wp2908-2016-group
persons who are not capable enough to take the
qualification of a degree and cannot afford the
monetary expenses to get their degree course,
will always be deprived from the government job
where the diploma is the minimum qualification
to make the candidate eligible for the post."
13. In our opinion, the views expressed by the
learned Single Judge of Uttarakhand High Court, referred
to above, are quite reasonable and acceptable. The
observations made in the above-referred paragraphs
indicate the rationale behind classification made
between the holders of Degrees and Diplomas in
Engineering. In the case at hand, after reserving 25%
of posts of Junior Engineers for being filled up by
nomination from amongst the candidates holding Degrees
in Civil Engineering, if the remaining posts are
reserved for the candidates holding Diplomas in Civil
Engineering, obviously with a view that they should not
be excluded from being considered for the posts of
Junior Engineers and in order to extend them an
opportunity to get Government service, who could not
afford the monetary expenses to get Degree course or who
did not find themselves capable enough to take
qualification of a Degree, it cannot be said that the
39 wp2908-2016-group
classification that has been done by the respondents is
irrational, unreasonable or unconstitutional.
14. The various advertisements issued by the
District Selection Committee Aurangabad, Zilla Parishad
Nagpur, Pimpri-Chinchwad Municipal Corporation,
Municipal Corporation Greater Mumbai, etc. whereby the
candidates holding Degrees in Engineering also were held
eligible for the posts of Junior Engineers, are of no
use to the petitioners herein to substantiate their
case, since the above-stated institutions are governed
by their respective Recruitment Rules. As stated above,
we do not find any discrimination on the part of the
respondents in framing the impugned Rule and advertising
the posts of Junior Engineers (Group-B Non-gazetted),
calling for the applications from the candidates holding
Diplomas in Civil Engineering only and not from the
candidates holding Degrees in Civil Engineering.
15. Certain judgments have been cited by the
learned counsel for the petitioners in support of the
contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners. The
first judgment is in the case of Mohit s/o Prashant
40 wp2908-2016-group
Meshram and others Vs. State of Maharashtra, through its
Secretary, Ministry of Irrigation & Water Conservation
and others, Writ Petition No. 1011 of 2016, delivered by
the Bombay High Court, Bench at Nagpur between 13 th to
16th April, 2016, wherein the petitioners who were
Diploma and Degree holders in Engineering and appointed
on contract basis for a period of eleven months by the
Water Conservation Department of the State Government in
the Vidarbha Region in pursuance of the advertisement,
dated 23rd August, 2013, had sought regularization of
their services. Though the Court was of the view that
the petitioners and the other Engineers that were
appointed in pursuance of the advertisement dated 23 rd
August, 2013, were not entitled to regularization, the
statement made on behalf of the State Government that
the State Government would exclude 28 posts of Junior
Engineers for the Vidarbha Region from the
advertisement, dated 15th February, 2016 so that their
cases would be considered on the basis of the criteria
mentioned in the affidavit, came to be accepted and with
those observations, the writ petition was dismissed. We
do not find anything in this judgment which would
advance the case of the petitioners.
41 wp2908-2016-group
16. In the case of Sudhir s/o Sharadrao Hunge and
another Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others, Writ
Petition No. 1489/2010 and other connected writ
petitions, decided by the Bombay High Court, Bench at
Nagpur on 2nd July, 2010, the question was whether
introduction of NET/SLET as eligibility condition for
recruitment and appointment of Lecturers in
Universities/Colleges/Institutions as per Gazette
Notification dated 11.7.2009 prescribed by University
Grants Commission (UGC) will affect the selections and
appointments made in accordance with the approved
advertisements/notifications published before 11.7.2009
when the eligibility condition was not compulsory NET or
SLET. The finding of the Court on this issue has no
bearing on the facts of the present case.
17. In the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma Vs. Chander
Shekhar, 1997 (4) SCC 18, it has been held that where
the applications were called prescribing a last date for
filing the application, the eligibility of the
candidates would be judged with reference to that date
only. In the case of Gopal Krushna Rath Vs. M.A.A.
42 wp2908-2016-group
Baig, 1999 (1) SCC 544, it has been observed that once
the election process has commenced and even the last
date for submitting application is over, subsequent
change will not affect the process of selection so
having commenced. Therefore, the appointment made on
the basis of such process cannot be nullified. The
ratio laid down in these rulings practically has no
bearing on the controversy involved in the present writ
petitions.
18. As discussed above, the classification made by
the respondents prescribing the educational
qualification of Degree in Civil Engineering for 25% of
the posts out of the total strength of the posts of
Junior Engineers and leaving the remaining 75% posts to
be filled up from amongst the candidates holding Diploma
in Civil Engineering, is quite reasonable and rationale.
The impugned Rule cannot be characterized as arbitrary,
irrational or unconstitutional. Consequently, the
impugned advertisement based on the said Rule cannot be
assailed on any ground.
19. While challenging the vires of impugned Rule 3
43 wp2908-2016-group
(b) (ii) and the impugned advertisement, the petitioners
have suppressed the fact that 25% of the posts out of
the total strength of the posts of Junior Engineers
reserved for being filled up from the candidates holding
the Degree in Civil Engineering. This suppression of
material fact would dis-entitle the petitioners from
claiming any relief. In fact, when the petitioners
wanted to challenge vires of the impugned Rule, it was
necessary for them firstly to challenge the Government
Resolution dated 16th April, 1984, whereby classification
was introduced by reserving 25% of the total strength of
Junior Engineers for being filled up exclusively from
the candidates possessing the Degrees in Civil
Engineering. They should have further challenged the
validity of the Recruitment Rules of Degree Holders of
1997 whereunder as per Rule 3 (ii) the candidates
possessing Degrees in Civil Engineering or any other
qualification declared by Government to be equivalent
thereto only have been held eligible for being appointed
to the posts of Assistant Engineers, Group-B (Gazetted),
which were to be filled up through the Maharashtra
Public Service Commission to the extent of 25% of the
total strength of Junior Engineers. Keeping the very
44 wp2908-2016-group
source of the alleged discrimination intact, the
petitioners cannot be allowed to challenge validity of
the offshoot thereof, as has been tried to be done by
them by these petitions. The petitions are liable to be
dismissed. The order dated 9 th March, 2016 whereunder
the respondents were directed to accept the application
forms of the petitioners will have to be recalled and
the applications of the petitioners will have to be
directed to be ignored. In the result, we pass the
following order :-
(i) All the writ petitions are dismissed.
(ii) The order dated 9th March, 2016 passed by this
Court is vacated.
(iii) The respondents may proceed with the selection
process ignoring the applications of the
petitioners.
(iv) Rule stands discharged accordingly.
(v) No costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
[SANGITRAO S. PATIL] [S.S. SHINDE]
JUDGE JUDGE
npj/wp2908-2016-group
45 wp2908-2016-group
20. After pronouncement of the judgment, the
learned counsel for the petitioners pray for
continuation of the interim relief which was in force
during the pendency of these writ petitions, for further
period of four weeks. The learned Government Pleader
strongly opposed the prayer for continuation of the
interim relief.
21.
In the facts and circumstances, discussed above
in the judgment and since the selection process has
already been set in motion, we are not inclined to
entertain the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners
for continuation of the interim relief any more. Hence,
the prayer for continuation of the interim relief for
further four weeks stands rejected.
Sd/- Sd/-
[SANGITRAO S. PATIL] [S.S. SHINDE]
JUDGE JUDGE
npj/wp2908-2016-group
