Bombay High Court
Ku. Sneha D/O Sunil Walke vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 19 July, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
wp508.16.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.508/2016
PETITIONER: Ku. Sneha d/o Sunil Walke,
age 24 years, Occupation Nil, resident of
Ganesh Colony, Gokul Nagar, Gadchiroli - 442 605.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS : 1. The State of Maharashtra,
through Secretary to the Government
of Maharashtra in the Department of Revenue
& Forests, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests,
Wan Bhawan, Civil Lines, Nagpur - 440 001.
3. The Collector-Cum-Chairman,
District Selection Committee, Gadchiroli.
4. The Deputy Conservator of Forests,
Forest Division, Gadchiroli.
5. Sweety d/o Dadasaheb Jambhulkar,
c/o Shri M.D. Jambhulkar, Bhiwapur Ward,
Behind Hanuman Mandir, Chandrapur - 442 403.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Jayant Mokadam, Advocate for petitioner
Mrs. K.R. Deshpande, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 4
Shri N.B. Kalwaghe, Advocate for respondent no.5
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, AND
MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : 19.07.2016
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard
finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.
wp508.16.odt
By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges a part of the
order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, dated 27.2.2015 that
rejects the prayer of the petitioner for a direction against the respondent
nos.1 to 4 to appoint the petitioner on the post of clerk-cum-typist.
The respondent nos.1 to 4 had issued an advertisement
inviting applications for appointment on the post of clerk-cum-typist. As
per the advertisement, three posts of clerk-cum-typists were earmarked
for the Scheduled Castes, of which one was earmarked for the Scheduled
Castes (Women). We are not concerned with the reservation for the
Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, Vimukta Jatis and Nomadic
Tribes, so far as this petition is concerned, as the petitioner as well as the
respondent no.5 had applied for the post that was reserved for the
Scheduled Castes (Women). The petitioner and the respondent no.5
belong to the Scheduled Castes and have therefore applied from that
category. The advertisement earmarked four posts of clerk-cum-typists in
the Open - General Category, of which one was reserved for the women.
It is not in dispute that the petitioner has secured the highest marks from
all the women that had applied for the post of clerk-cum-typist from
various categories and she had secured 150 marks out of 200. The
petitioner was, however, not appointed on the post of clerk-cum-typist
either from the Scheduled Castes (Women) Category or from the General
wp508.16.odt
(Women) Category. Being aggrieved by the arbitrary action on the part of
the respondent nos.1 to 4, the petitioner had filed an original application
before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. The Maharashtra
Administrative Tribunal did not find favour with the submissions made on
behalf of the petitioner for challenging the action on the part of the
respondent nos.1 to 4 in not appointing the petitioner on the post
earmarked for the Open (Women) Category or Scheduled Castes
(Women) Category but since one of the posts earmarked for the woman
category was vacant, the Tribunal directed the respondent nos.1 to 4 to
consider appointing the petitioner on that post. Since the petitioner is
most meritorious of all the women, that had participated in the selection
process, the petitioner has challenged the action of the Tribunal in
refusing to direct the respondent nos.1 to 4 to appoint the petitioner on
the post earmarked for General (Women) Category.
Shri Mokadam, the learned Counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the petitioner
was not entitled to be appointed either on the post reserved for the
Scheduled Castes (Women) or on the post for General (Women). It is
stated that merely because the petitioner had applied from the Scheduled
Castes Category, the respondent nos.1 to 4 could not have denied the
appointment to the petitioner on the post earmarked for Scheduled Castes
wp508.16.odt
(Women) or from General (Women) Category, though she had secured
the highest marks. It is stated that the action on the part of the
respondent nos.1 to 4 and the order of the Tribunal would give an
impression that the most meritorious candidate from a reserved category
can also be deprived of a post. It is stated that in the circumstances of the
case, specially when one of the posts earmarked for women is vacant, the
Tribunal ought to have issued a specific direction to the respondent
nos.1 to 4 to appoint the petitioner on the vacant post without disturbing
the other candidates, if it was of the view that the other appointments
should not be disturbed.
Mrs. Deshpande, the learned Assistant Government Pleader
appearing on behalf of the respondent nos.1 to 4 submitted that since the
petitioner had applied as a woman candidate from the Scheduled Castes
Category, she was not appointed on the post earmarked for the Scheduled
Castes (Women) Category as one post was earmarked for the in-service
candidate, one for the project affected and the third for the Scheduled
Castes (General). It is admitted that the candidates, that had applied from
Scheduled Castes (Women) (in-service candidates) and Scheduled Castes
(Women) (project affected), had secured much lower marks than the
petitioner, inasmuch as, the respondent no.5 has secured only 92 marks
as against 150 marks, that were secured by the petitioner. It is stated that
wp508.16.odt
since the petitioner had applied from Scheduled Castes (Women), she was
also not considered for General (Women) post. It is, however, fairly stated
that one post of clerk-cum-typist is still vacant and if this Court so directs,
the respondent nos.1 to 4 may consider appointing the petitioner on the
said post.
Shri Kalwaghe, the learned Counsel for the respondent no.5
submitted that since the respondent no.5 had applied from Scheduled
Castes (Women) (in-service candidates) Category, she was rightly
selected as she has secured the highest marks in that category.
On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, we find that
the respondent nos.1 to 4 had committed an error in not appointing the
petitioner on the post earmarked for the General (Women) Category. In
view of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Rajesh Kumar Daria, reported in AIR 2007 SC 3127, the respondent
nos.1 to 4 ought to have made a list of the meritorious women candidates
and then selected the woman that had secured the highest marks, for
appointment on the post of General (Women) Category. Though the
petitioner had secured the highest marks from amongst the women, that
had participated in the selection process, the petitioner is deprived of the
post, despite the fact that she also belongs to the Scheduled Castes
Category. The action on the part of the respondent nos.1 to 4 in depriving
wp508.16.odt
the petitioner of the post of clerk-cum-typist though the petitioner had
secured 150 marks, that were much more than the marks secured by the
other women candidates, is illegal. In any case since one of the posts of
clerk-cum-typist is still vacant, it would be necessary to direct the
respondent nos.1 to 4 to appoint the petitioner on the said post without
disturbing the other appointments, as there is no challenge to the
appointment of the other candidates but for the present petition, that
challenges the appointment of the respondent no.5.
Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is
allowed. The order of the Tribunal is modified. We direct the respondent
nos.1 to 4 to appoint the petitioner on the post of clerk-cum-typist, within
a period of fifteen days.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order
as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Wadkar
wp508.16.odt
C E R T I F I C A T E
I certify that this judgment uploaded is a true and correct
copy of original signed judgment.
Uploaded by : S.S. Wadkar, P.S. Uploaded on : 22/07/2016
