Pravin S/O Madanrao Bansod vs State Of Maharashtra Department ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 573 Bom

       wp1463.15                                                                1



                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                                       
                               NAGPUR BENCH

                        WRIT PETITION  NO.  1463  OF  2015




                                               
      Pravin s/o Madanrao Bansod,
      age 28 years, occupation -




                                              
      Student, r/o Deshmukh Nagar,
      Ner, At Post and Tq. Ner,
      District - Yavatmal.                       ...   PETITIONER




                                           
                                   Versus

      1. State of Maharashtra,
                             
         Department of General 
         Administration, Mantralaya,
                            
         Mumbai 32.

      2. The Collector and President of
         District Selection Committee,
         Akola, District - Akola.
      


      3. Member,
   



         District Selection Committee,
         Akola and Chief Executive
         Officer, Zilla Parishad, Akola,
         District - Akola.





      4. Member Secretary,
         District Selection Committee,
         Akola and Executive Engineer,
         Zilla Parishad, Akola,





         District - Akola.

      5. Prashant s/o Yashwant Gudadhe,
         aged about 29 years, occupation
         Student, r/o Adarsh Colony,
         Khanapur Road, Patur, Tq. Patur,
         District - Akola.                       ...   RESPONDENTS


      Shri S.S. Dhengale, Advocate for the petitioner.
      Mrs. A.R. Taiwade, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 & 2.


    ::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2016               ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 08:57:28 :::
        wp1463.15                                                                        2



      Shri A.D. Girdekar, Advocate for respondent Nos. 3 & 4.




                                                                               
                         .....

                                     CORAM :       B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &




                                                       
                                                   P.N. DESHMUKH, JJ.

MARCH 14, 2016.

ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard

finally with the consent of Shri Dhengale, learned counsel for

the petitioner, Mrs. Taiwade, learned AGP for respondent Nos.

1 & 2 and Shri Girdekar, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3

& 4.

2. The learned AGP is seeking time to obtain

instructions.

3. Shri Dhengale, learned counsel submits that the

petitioner has secured 138 marks while Respondent No. 5 has

secured only 116 marks, still Respondent No. 5 is being

appointed by superseding better claim of the petitioner. For

that purpose, he is placing reliance upon a select list published

by Respondent No. 2 on 05.03.2015.

4. It is to be noted that this Court, after hearing the

petitioner, has directed that no appointment order shall be

issued to Respondent No. 5. Respondent No. 5 though served,

has chosen not to appear.

5. Shri Dhengale, learned counsel submits that in the

advertisement, post of Junior Engineer was to be filled in by

Graduate Engineer having qualification in Civil or Mechanical

or Electrical Engineering. The petitioner has degree in

Mechanical Engineering and has secured 22 marks more than

Respondent No. 5 and hence his claim cannot be side tracked.

6. Shri Girdekar, learned counsel submits that two

vacancies on civil side were available with Zilla Parishad,

Akola, and for filling in those vacancies, process was

undertaken by Respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 2 has acted

as President/ Chairman of that Committee. He contends that

there was error while issuing advertisement and though there

was no requirement of a Graduate Engineer in Electrical or

Mechanical faculty, the advertisement came to be published.

7. Shri Dhengale, learned counsel is strongly

opposing this contention.

8. We find substance in the submission of Shri

Dhengale, learned counsel for the petitioner. The material on

record is insufficient to conclude that there was any error

while publishing advertisement. However, the statement has

been made by Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 in their reply on

affidavit. The verification of relevant material may itself take

sometime and give rise to some other dispute.

8. In this situation, we find that the interest of justice

can be met with by directing the petitioner as also Respondent

No. 5 to appear before Respondent No. 2 - Collector and

President of Selection Committee, Akola. Respondent No. 2

shall verify the records relating to recruitment and find out

whether mention of requirement of degree of Mechanical or

Electrical Engineering in advertisement was erroneous or

inadvertent. This exercise shall be completed within a period

of three weeks after the petitioner and Respondent No. 5

appear before Respondent No. 2.

9. The petitioner and Respondent No. 5 to appear

before Respondent No. 2 on 04.04.2016.

10. Interim orders granted by this Court shall continue

till Respondent No. 2 considers this issue and passes

appropriate orders and for two weeks thereafter.

10.

Writ Petition is thus partly allowed and disposed

of. Rule is made absolute in above terms. However, in the

facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as

to costs.

Certified copy expedited.

               JUDGE                                                      JUDGE
                                                  ******





      *GS.