Bombay High Court
Khandu Raosaheb Patil vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 18 March, 2016
Bench: S.S. Shinde
1 WP 111916/2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 11916 OF 2015
Khandu Raosaheb Patil,
Age- 27 years, Occ.: Nil,
R/o. At Yelloriwadi, Post Korangda,
Tq. Ausa, Dist. Latur. ... PETITIONER.
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary,
Power Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Director General,
Maharashtra State Power Generation
Company Ltd., Plot No. G-9, 6th Floor,
Prof. Anant Kanekar Marg,
Bandra East, Mumbai - 400051.
3. The Executive Director
Maharashtra State Power Generation
Company Ltd., Plot No. G-9, 6th Floor,
Prof. Anant Kanekar Marg,
Bandra East, Mumbai - 400051.
4. Prakash Venkat Sarje,
Age: Major, Occu: Service,
R/o. 22/11 KV Rohan Mithila
Substation (MSEB),
Ronan Mitila, Viman Nagar,
Pune - 411 014. ... RESPONDENTS.
---
::: Uploaded on - 22/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 09:29:36 :::
2 WP 111916/2015
Mr. Anandsing Bayas, Advocate for Petitioner;
Mr. S.D. Kaldate, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1/State;
Mr. A.M. Gaikwad, Advocate for Respondents No.2 and 3;
Mr.E.S. Murge, Advocate for Respondent No.4.
----
CORAM : S.S. Shinde and P.R. Bora, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 01st March, 2016
PRONOUNCED ON : 18th March, 2016
JUDGMENT: (Per : P.R. Bora, J.)
1) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the
learned Counsel for the respective parties.
2) The Petitioner has filed the present petition,
challenging the selection of Respondent No.4 on the post of
Technician-III from the quota, meant for the earthquake affected
persons belonging to Scheduled Tribe. Further, the petitioner
has sought the direction against the Respondents to consider his
candidature for appointment to the said post.
3) As averred in the petition, respondents No.2 and 3
had issued an advertisement No.04(Aug)/2014, inviting
applications for the post of Technician-III. Total 308 posts were
to be filled-in, out of which 17 posts were reserved for the
candidates belonging to Scheduled Tribe. Amongst the 17 seats
so reserved for the Scheduled Tribe candidates, one post was
3 WP 111916/2015
reserved for the earthquake affected persons. As further averred
in the petition, since the petitioner belongs to the Scheduled
Tribe and was also possessing the certificate of earthquake
affected person, he submitted his on-line application, claiming
reservation as an earthquake affected person belonging to
Scheduled Tribe. Respondent No.4 had also applied for the post
of Technician-III, claiming reservation to the post reserved for the
earthquake affected persons belonging to Scheduled Tribe.
4)
It is the case of the petitioner that, the petitioner and
respondent No.4 both appeared for written and oral
examinations, in which petitioner secured 23 marks, whereas
respondent No.4 secured 29 marks. Since respondent No.4 has
secured more marks than the petitioner, he was shown to have
been selected for the sole post reserved for the earthquake
affected persons belonging to Scheduled Tribe. It is the further
case of the petitioner that, in the selection list published by
respondents No.2 and 3, petitioner was declared ineligible on the
ground that, he submitted the certificate of earthquake affected
person of the latter date. It is the further case of the petitioner
that, respondent No.4 was not liable to be selected for the seat
reserved for the earthquake affected persons belonging to
Scheduled Tribe category, for the reason that, respondent No.4
had already availed benefit of the said certificate and has
4 WP 111916/2015
secured an appointment on the post of Operator and had also
joined on the said post in the employment of respondents No.2
and 3. It is the further case of the petitioner that, the petitioner
and respondent No.4 were the only two candidates who were
eligible and entitled for the appointment on the post of
Technician-III reserved for the earthquake affected persons
belonging to Scheduled Tribe. It is the further case of the
petitioner that, since respondent No.4 has already availed the
benefit available to the earthquake affected persons, he was not
liable to be selected and appointed on the post of Technician-III
as advertised vide advertisement No.04 (Aug)/2014. It is the
further case of the petitioner that, after eliminating the name of
respondent No.4, petitioner alone was eligible and entitled to be
selected and appointed on the said post of Technician-III. It is
the further case of the petitioner that, the respondents have
however declared him ineligible on the ground that, the
petitioner did not submit the certificate of the earthquake
affected person of the date prior to the date of submission of the
on-line application.
5) In background of the facts as aforesaid, the petitioner
has filed the present petition, seeking directions as mentioned
here-in-above. It is the contention of the petitioner that, he was
possessing the certificate of earthquake affected person since
5 WP 111916/2015
13.12.2010, however, since a change occurred in his surname,
the said earlier certificate dated 13.12.2010 was cancelled and a
fresh certificate came to be issued in his favour on 18.02.2015.
According to the petitioner, he was thus holding and possessing
the certificate of earthquake affected person on the date of
submitting his on-line application. In the circumstances,
according to the petitioner, the respondents No.2 and 3 should
not have declared him ineligible on the said ground.
6)
Shri Samir Gopal Dewoolkar has filed an affidavit in
reply on behalf of respondents No.2 and 3. It is the contention of
respondents No.2 and 3 that, the candidates applying for the
posts advertised vide advertisement No.04 (Aug)/2014 were
required to possess the requisite qualification and the documents
supporting their qualification and claim for reservation as on the
last date of the application i.e. 10.09.2014. It is further
contended that, when the petitioner was claiming reservation to
the post reserved for the earthquake affected persons belonging
to Scheduled Tribe category, it was incumbent on his part to
submit the certificate of earthquake affected person valid as on
the last date of the application i.e. 10.09.2014. It is the further
contention of the respondents No.2 and 3 that, since the
petitioner submitted the certificate of earthquake affected
person of the date 18.02.2015, he was rightly declared ineligible.
6 WP 111916/2015
Respondents No.2 and 3 have further contended that, the
certificate of earthquake affected person submitted by
respondent No.4 has been referred for verification, and in case it
is found that, respondent No.4 has already availed the benefit of
the said certificate, the selection of respondent No.4 would stand
cancelled.
7) Respondent No.4 has also submitted his affidavit in
reply wherein he has admitted that, he has already availed the
benefit of the certificate of earthquake affected person.
Respondent No.4 has further contended that, he is not opting for
the appointment to the post of Technician-III. He has also
contended that, he may not have any grievance if the petitioner
is considered to be appointed to the said post, since he and the
petitioner both belong to the same village, and petitioner also
falls in the category of earthquake affected person.
8) Petitioner has placed on record the copy of
advertisement No.04 (Aug)/2014, the list of candidates
shortlisted for documents verification, the final selection list, the
mark list and the copy of the certificate of earthquake affected
person in his favour.
9) After having heard the learned Counsel for the
respective parties and on perusal of the documents filed on
7 WP 111916/2015
record, it is reveled that, the names of petitioner and respondent
No.4 were shortlisted for documents verification. It is further not
in dispute that, respondent No.4, as per his own contention, has
already availed the benefit of the earthquake affected person
and is not opting for the appointment on the post of Technician-III
for which he has been selected. Admittedly, the petitioner has
been held ineligible on the ground that, the certificate of
earthquake affected person submitted by the petitioner is not in
consonance with the requirement as envisaged. It is further not
in dispute that, for the seat reserved for the earthquake affected
persons belonging to Scheduled Tribe, petitioner and respondent
No.4 were the only two candidates shortlisted for documents
verification. In view of the fact that, respondent No.4 himself
has admitted that, he has already availed the benefit of
earthquake affected person, he has to be held dis-entitled for
claiming the benefit of the earthquake affected person on the
second occasion. In the circumstances, though respondent No.4
is shown to have been selected for to be appointed on the post of
Technician-III, reserved for the earthquake affected person
belonging to Scheduled Tribe category, no appointment can be
issued in his favour and his selection needs to be cancelled.
10) Next question arises, whether the decision of the
respondents No.2 and 3 declaring the petitioner ineligible for not
8 WP 111916/2015
submitting the certificate of the earthquake affected person in
consonance with the requirement can be sustained.
11) As contended by respondent Nos.2 and 3 in para 5 of
their affidavit in reply, eligibility of the candidate was to be
considered as on 10.09.2014. According to respondent Nos.2
and 3 since certificate of the 'earthquake affected person'
submitted by the petitioner was of the date 18.02.2015, the
petitioner has been rightly held not eligible for to be appointed to
the advertised post.
12) The petitioner has placed on record the certificate of
'earthquake affected person' issued by Tahsildar, Ausa on
18.02.2015. We have carefully perused the contents of the said
Certificate. In para No.1 of the said certificate, it is averred that,
village Kavli , Tq. Ausa, Dist. Latur of which Shri Koli Raosaheb
Vitthal is the resident is one of the village, which was completely
destroyed in the earthquake occurred on 30.09.1993. In para No.
2 it is averred that, Shri Patil Khandu Raosaheb i.e. the present
petitioner is the son of Shri Koli Raosaheb Vitthal, the earthquake
affected person. The last para is more important wherein it is
explained that, the previous certificate of earthquake affected
person issued on 13.12.2010 by the Sub Divisional Officer, Latur
in the name of Shri Koli Khandu Raosaheb vide outward no.
२०१०/भूकंप/कािि/४२३ dated 13.12.2010 is cancelled and in place of
9 WP 111916/2015
the said certificate, the present certificate is being issued in the
name of Shri Patil Khandu Raosaheb.
13) From the contents of the certificate as aforesaid, it is
quite evident that, the present petitioner was holding the
certificate of project affected person since 13.12.2010. As has
been clarified by the petitioner, by providing necessary
particulars in that regard, since change occurred in the surname
of the petitioner, which has been notified in the official gazette,
the petitioner applied for the certificate of project affected
person in his changed name, and accordingly the same was
issued in his favour by Tahsildar, Ausa, Dist. Latur on 18.02.2015.
As has been explained by the petitioner, since he has made an
application for the post of Technician-III in the name as Patil
Khandu Raosaheb, he was required to submit the certificate of
earthquake affected person in the said name or else he could
have very well submitted the certificate dated 13.12.2010, which
was in his erstwhile name as Koli Khandu Raosaheb.
14) It appears to us that, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3
must have given due consideration to the fact mentioned in the
certificate dated 18.02.2015 itself that, the said certificate has
been issued in the name of the petitioner by canceling his earlier
certificate dated 13.12.2010, which was issued to the petitioner
in the name as Koli Khandu Raosaheb and should not have
10 WP 111916/2015
therefore held the said certificate to be not in consonance with
the envisaged requirement. Though the certificate produced by
the petitioner before the respondents at the time of verification
of documents bears the date as 18.02.2015, from the contents of
the said certificate, it is quite evident that, the petitioner was
certified as the earthquake affected person on 13.12.2010 itself.
The Petitioner was thus fulfilling the requirement for to be
appointed to the post reserved for the earthquake affected
person. We feel that, wherever certain benefits are extended to
the earthquake affected persons or project affected persons or
other such similar categories, it should be the endeavor that,
such benefits are actually extended to such candidates as far as
possible and not to refuse them such benefits raising technical
and some times hyper technical objections. In the instant case,
according to us, the respondents ought to have accepted the
certificate of earthquake affected person, submitted by the
petitioner to be valid compliance of the requirement, having
regard to the contents of the said certificate. We hold that the
petitioner was holding the certificate of earthquake affected
person on 10.09.2014 and was thus eligible to be considered
from the category of earthquake affected person.
15) In view of the finding recorded by us as above that,
on 10.09.2014 the petitioner was holding the certificate of
11 WP 111916/2015
project affected person, the petitioner has become entitled to be
considered for to be appointed to the post of Technician-III
reserved for the project affected person (S.T.). As has been
discussed hereinabove, the petitioner and respondent No.4 were
the only two candidates shortlisted for to be considered for the
appointment to the post reserved for the earthquake affected
person belonging to Scheduled Tribe. In premise of the fact that,
we have held the respondent No.4 to be not entitled for such
appointment, the petitioner deserves to be considered for to be
appointed on the said post, if he otherwise fulfills other
requirements. We are, therefore, inclined to allow the present
petition. Hence, following order.
ORDER
(a) Selection of the respondent No.4 for the appointment to
the post of Technician-III, in pursuance of the
advertisement No. 04(Aug)/2014, reserved for the
earthquake affected persons belonging to Scheduled Tribe,
is quashed and set aside.
(b) Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are directed to consider the claim
of the petitioner for the appointment to the said post of
Technician-III, reserved for the earthquake affected
persons belonging to Scheduled Tribe, if he otherwise
fulfills all other requirements, within four weeks from the
date of this order.
12 WP 111916/2015
(c) Rule is accordingly made absolute in the aforesaid terms
with no order as to costs.
P.R. Bora, S.S. Shinde,
Judge Judge
...
S P Rane
