Sachin Hanuman Phad vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 3935 Bom

                                                                       200.16WP
                                            1




                                                                        
                               
                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY 




                                                
                           BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                              WRIT PETITION NO. 200 OF 2016




                                               
              Sachin S/o Hanuman Phad 
              Age : 21 years, Occ : Nil, 
              R/o At Tandalwadi Bhill, 
              Taluka and District Beed. 
                                                    ... PETITIONER




                                       
                       VERSUS

              1.
                             
                       The State of Maharashtra 
                       Through Principal Secretary 
                       Rural Development Department, 
                            
                       Mantralaya, Mumbai 

              2.       The President (District Collector), 
                       District Selection Committee, Jalna
                       Collector Office, Jalna. 
      


              3.       Chief Executive Officer, 
   



                       (Member, District Selection Committee) 
                       Zilla Parishad, Jalna. 

              4.       Deputy Chief Executive Officer, 





                       (General Administration Department) 
                       (Cordinator, District Selection 
                       Committee), Zilla Parishad, Jalna. 

              5.   Datta S/o Shvajirao Pawar 





                   Age : Major, Occ : Service, 
                   R/o Dhavalesher, Bhokardan Road, 
                   Jalna, Dist. Jalna. 
                                                    ...RESPONDENTS 
                                        ...
              Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Shrimant Mundhe
              A.G.P. for Respondent/State:Mr. S.B. Yawalkar 
              Advocate   for   Respondent   Nos.3   &   4:   Mr.   A.D. 
              Aghav 




    ::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2016                ::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2016 23:58:55 :::
                                                                             200.16WP
                                                2




                                                                             
                                     CORAM : S.S. SHINDE & 
                                             SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.




                                                     
                            RESERVED ON : July 11, 2016
                             PRONOUNCED ON : July 19, 2016 
                                     ...




                                                    
              JUDGMENT (PER S.S. SHINDE, J) 

This Writ Petition is filed with the

following prayers :-

"C) This Hon'ble Court may be

pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or directions and quash and

set aside the final selection list dated 10/12/2015 (Exh.D) published by the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 i.e.

District Selection Committee, Jalna

for the post of Junior Assistant (Clerk), reserved for handicapped (Deaf and Dumb) category.

C-A) This Hon'ble court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction and quash and set

aside the appointment order dated 21/01/2016 issued by respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in favour of respondent No.5 i.e. Mr. Datta S/o Shivajirao Pawar and direct the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to issue appointment order for the

200.16WP

post of Junior Assistant (Clerk) from reserved category for

handicapped (Dumb & Deaf) person in favour of petitioner, within stipulated period."

2. The relevant facts for filing this

Writ Petition are as under :-

The petitioner belongs to N.T.D.

category and handicapped (deaf and dumb)

category. The petitioner has completed

H.S.C., MS-CIT with 76%, Marathi Typewriting

speed 30 w.p.m., English Typewriting speed 30

w.p.m. and the petitioner has given

examination of English typewriting speed 40

w.p.m. On 31st October, 2015, Respondent Nos.2

to 4 published advertisement for the

recruitment of various posts in the Zilla

Parishad, Jalna. Respondent No.1 had

constituted the selection committee

comprising of three members i.e. respondent

nos. 2 to 4. In the said advertisement, one

200.16WP

post of Assistant Junior (Clerk) was reserved

for handicapped (Deaf and Dumb) Category. As

per the said advertisement, the required

qualification was that the candidate should

have completed S.S.C., not having more than

33 years of age, having passed in Marathi and

English Typewriting speed 30 and 40 w.p.m.

respectively, or having passed S.S.C. or

equivalent examination with 50% of marks in

typewriting.

3. As the petitioner was qualified to

the post of Assistant Junior (Clerk),

reserved for handicapped (Deaf and Dumb)

Category as on 16th November, 2015, he

applied Online for the said post. The

application form of the petitioner was

accepted and the petitioner appeared for

examination, passed the same by obtaining 152

marks and stood at Sr. No.1 in the category

200.16WP

published the final select list of the

candidates for the said post on 10th December,

2015. The name of the petitioner did not

appear in that list, instead, respondent

No.5, who got 150 marks appeared in that list

as selected candidate. Thereafter, the

petitioner on 14th ig December, 2015 made

asking for the reason for rejection of his

candidature, but Respondent nos. 2 and 3 did

not assign any reason. Hence this Petition.

4. The learned counsel appearing for

the petitioner invites our attention to the

Clerk-Typist in Government Offices Outside

Greater Bombay (Recruitment) Rules, 1993

framed by the General Administration

Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai on 3rd

September, 1993, and submits that as per Rule

3 (b) (iii) of the said Rules, the candidate,

who has applied for the post of Junior clerk

200.16WP

should possess the Government commercial

Certificate for speed of not less than 30

words per minute in Marathi typewriting or 40

words per minute in English typewriting, as

the case may be. It is the submission of the

learned counsel that the candidate should

possess either certificate for speed of not

less than 30 words per minute in Marathi

Typewriting or 40 words per minute in English

typewriting. He submits that in the

advertisement issued by the Respondents for

the post of Junior Clerk, one of the

requirements was that the candidate must

possess the certificate of Marathi and

English Typewriting, having speed of 30 words

and 40 words per minute respectively is

contrary to Rule 3(b) (iii) of the Rules. On

the date on which the petitioner applied for

the post of Junior clerk, he was possessing

the certificate for speed of 30 words per

minute in Marathi typewriting. Therefore, the

200.16WP

petitioner filed representation to that

effect to the concerned Respondent to

consider his request for appointment to the

said post since the petitioner secured 152

marks, vis-a-vis, Respondent No.5, who is

appointed as Junior clerk, secured 150 marks.

5.

On the other hand, the learned

A.G.P. appearing for the Respondent/State

submits that the petitioner participated in

the selection process and the list of

selected candidates was published and

thereafter the petitioner filed

representation. He submits that on the date

when the petitioner filed application, he did

not fulfill the requirement of having

certificate of English Typewriting of the

speed 40 words per minute. Therefore, the

petitioner is not entitled for any relief.

6. The learned counsel appearing for

200.16WP

Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, relying upon the

averments made in the affidavit in reply,

submits that the Petition is devoid of merits

and same may be dismissed.

7. We have considered the submissions

advanced by the learned counsel appearing for

the petitioner, the learned A.G.P. appearing

for the Respondent/State and the learned

and 4. With their able assistance, we have

perused the pleadings in the Petition,

annexures thereto and reply filed by

Respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

8. It appears that the advertisement

for the recruitment of various posts in the

Zilla Parishad, Jalna was issued on 31st

October, 2015. The petitioner applied for the

post of Junior Clerk on 16th November, 2015.

The Respondent published the final selection

200.16WP

list of candidates on 10th December, 2015, and

the petitioner filed representations to

Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 on 14 th December,

2015. The petitioner participated in the

selection process, without any protest and on

being unsuccessful, filed the

representations. It is true that the

petitioner secured 152 marks and Respondent

No.5 secured 150 marks, however, on the date

of filling up the application, the petitioner

did not possess the certificate showing that

he had passed English Typewriting examination

of speed of 40 words per minute. The law is

well settled that once the candidate

participates in the selection process is not

entitled to question the said selection

process after the same is complete. It

appears that Online applications were called

and in the advertisement in clause 6.2, the

Respondent Authorities put a special note

that the candidate is allowed to appear for

200.16WP

examination without scrutinizing documents/

papers but, he has to submit the certificates

possessing the requisite qualification

mentioned in the advertisement at the time of

verification of the documents. On

verification of the documents, it was found

that the petitioner at the relevant time did

not possess English typewriting speed of 40

words per minute. It is true that the

petitioner is at sr. no.1 in the merit list,

however, in view of clause 6.2 in the said

advertisement, at the time of verification of

documents, the petitioner was not possessing

the required certificate of English

Typewriting of speed of 40 words per minute.

9. The Supreme Court in the case of

Dhananjay Malik and others V/s State of

Uttaranchal and others1 in para 7 held

thus :-

1 (2008)4 SSC 171

200.16WP

"7. It is not disputed that the respondent-writ petitioners herein

participated in the process of selection knowing fully well that the educational qualification was clearly

indicated in the advertisement itself as BPE or graduate with diploma in Physical Education. Having

unsuccessfully participated in the

process of selection without any demur they are estopped from challenging the

selection criterion inter alia that the advertisement and selection with regard to requisite educational qualifications

were contrary to the Rules."

10. In that view of the matter, we are

unable to persuade ourself to grant any

relief to the petitioner. Hence the Petition

stands rejected.

                       Sd/-                       Sd/- 
              (SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.)    (S.S. SHINDE, J.)



              SGA