Bombay High Court
The State Of Maha., Through Its ... vs Vinod S/O. Shriram Shinde And ... on 27 June, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
wp1095.16.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.1095/2016
PETITIONERS: 1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary, Agriculture Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. Agriculture Commissionerate,
Maharashtra State, Shivaji Nagar, Pune.
ig 3. Regional Agriculture Joint Director
Amravati Region, Rayali Plot,
Jaistambha Square, Amravati.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS : 1. Vinod s/o Shriram Shinde
Aged about 25 years, Occupation :
Unemployed, r/o Plot No.12,
Ramkrishna Nagar, Balsond,
Hingoli, Distt. Hingoli.
2. Abhijit s/o Maheshwarrao Jamankar
Aged about Adult, r/o Shriram Nagar,
Nerparsopant, Tq. Ner, District Yavatmal.
(Deleted as per Court's order dt.15.2.16).
3. Subodh Balwantrao Jondhale,
Aged about Adult, r/o Janpriya Colony,
Koregaon Road, Parbhani.
(Deleted as per Court's Order dt.15.2.16)
4. Shri Prafulkumar Vilas Jadhav
Aged - r/o Vivekanand Nagar (Hiwara Bk),
Tq. Mehkar, Dist. Buldhana.
(Added respondent no.4 vide Court's Order
dt. 15/2/16)
::: Uploaded on - 01/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 07:17:39 :::
wp1095.16.odt
2
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mrs. K.R. Deshpande, AGP for petitioners
Shri A.D. Girdekar, Advocate for respondent no.1
Shri S.S. Bhalerao, Advocate for respondent no.4
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, AND
MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : 27.06.2016
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.
By this petition, the petitioner - State of Maharashtra and
three others challenge the order of the Maharashtra Administrative
Tribunal, dated 4.3.2015, allowing the original application filed by the
respondent no.1 and directing the petitioners to consider granting
appointment to the respondent no.1 on the post of Krushi Sevak as early
as possible.
Several posts of Krushi Sevaks were advertised by the State
of Maharashtra by publishing the advertisement, dated 20.6.2013. Out of
the several posts, that were advertised, 56 posts of Krushi Sevaks were
earmarked for the open category. Of the 56 posts, that were earmarked
for the open category, 3 posts were earmarked for open (Sports Persons).
Admittedly, the respondent no.1 and the respondent no.4 had applied for
appointment on the post of Krushi Sevak from the category of open
sports persons. The respondent no.2 published the select list and it was
wp1095.16.odt
noticed by the respondent no.1 that the names of the candidates, that had
applied from OBC (Sports Persons) and SC (Sports Persons) category,
were included in the select list. According to the respondent no.1, only
the persons applying for the posts, reserved for the open (Sport Persons),
could have been selected and appointed in those vacancies. The
respondent no.1, therefore, filed the original application before the
Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, challenging the selection of the
respondent nos.3 and 4. The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal
allowed the original application filed by the respondent no.1 and directed
the petitioners to appoint the respondent no.1 on the post of Krushi Sevak
from open (Sports Persons) category. Being aggrieved by the order of the
Tribunal, the petitioners filed a review application. In the review
application, the petitioners sought for a modification of the impugned
order so as to grant permission to the petitioners to modify the select list,
as per the merit of the candidates. The review application was, however,
rejected. Both the orders are impugned in the instant petition.
Mrs. Deshpande, the learned Assistant Government Pleader
appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that out of the three posts,
that were earmarked for the open (Sports Persons) category, only one
vacancy is filled. It is stated that two posts of Krushi Sevaks are still
vacant. It is stated, by taking this Court through the select list at page
wp1095.16.odt
no.42, that the respondent no.3 had secured 136 marks, that are much
more than the marks secured by the respondent no.1 and the respondent
no.4. It is stated that the petitioners had rightly selected the most
meritorious candidates for appointment on the posts reserved for the open
(Sports Persons) category. It is stated that the respondent no.4 had also
applied from open (Sports Persons) category and since the respondent
no.4 had secured more marks than the respondent no.1, the Tribunal
could not have directed the petitioners to appoint the respondent no.1 by
ignoring the merit of other candidates.
The learned Counsel for the respondent no.1 supported the
order of the Tribunal and submitted that the said order was passed by
relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Rajesh Kumar Daria...Versus...Rajasthan Public Service Commission
and others, reported in AIR 2007 SC 3127 and since two posts of Krushi
Sevaks in the open (Sports Persons) category were vacant, the Tribunal
has rightly directed the petitioners to appoint the respondent no.1 on one
of the two vacant posts.
The learned Counsel for the respondent no.4 has adopted
the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners and has sought for the
modification of the select list. It is stated that if the respondent no.1 is to
be appointed, the respondent no.4 should also be appointed, as he has
wp1095.16.odt
secured more marks than the respondent no.1. In any case, it is stated
that the respondent no.4 cannot be deprived of the job, only in view of
the order of the Tribunal and this Court may consider passing appropriate
orders, in the circumstances of the case.
On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on a
perusal of the impugned orders, we find that the Tribunal was not
justified in directing the petitioners to appoint the respondent no.1 on the
post of Krushi Sevak from the open (Sports Persons) category. Admittedly,
several candidates, that had applied from the sports persons category, had
secured more marks than the respondent no.1. Even the respondent no.4
has applied from the open (Sports Persons) category and has secured
more marks than the respondent no.1. Merely because the respondent
no.1 had approached the Tribunal, the Tribunal could not have directed
the State Government to straightway appoint the respondent no.1 on the
post of Krushi Sevak. It is rightly submitted on behalf of the petitioners
that since two posts of Krushi Sevaks were vacant in the open (Sport
Persons) category, the petitioners ought to have been directed to modify
the list appropriately so as to appoint the most meritorious candidates,
that had applied from the open (Sports Persons) category. It is rightly
submitted on behalf of the respondent no.4 that the respondent no.4
could not have been deprived of the job merely because the respondent
wp1095.16.odt
no.1 had approached the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, though
the respondent no.4 has also applied from the open (Sports Persons)
category and has secured more marks than the respondent no.1. In the
circumstances of the case, the Tribunal ought to have allowed the review
application and should have permitted the petitioners to modify the select
list.
Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is partly
allowed. The impugned order, dated 24.7.2015 is quashed and set aside.
The impugned order, dated 4.3.2015 is modified. The petitioners are
hereby directed to modify the select list appropriately so as to grant
appointment to the candidates as per their merit. The petitioners should
issue the appointment orders to the meritorious candidates, as per the
select list. The said exercise should be completed by the petitioners,
within a period of two months.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order
as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Wadkar
