Bombay High Court
Kishor S/O Ramdas Khandaway vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 14 October, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
1410wp2620-2625.13-Judgment 1/7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 2620 OF 2013
PETITIONER :- Kishor S/o Ramdas Khandaway, aged about
28 years, Occupation-Unemployed, R/o Plot
No.75/A, Police Nagar, S.R.P.F. Gate,
Hingna Road, MIDC, Nagpur 16.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through its
Secretary, Department of Home Mantralaya,
Mumbai-32.
ig 2) The Commandant, The State Reserve Police
Force, Group No.4, Hingna, Nagpur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr.C.S.Kaptan, sr.counsel with Mr.P.S.Chawhan, counsel
for the petitioner.
Mr.K.L.Dharmadhikari, Asstt.Govt.Pleader for the respondents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WRIT PETITION NO. 2621 OF 2013
PETITIONER :- Mohammed Numan s/o Hamid Hasan
Sheikh, aged about 22 years, Occupation-
Unemployed, R/o Chankapur Colony, Qtr.
No.152/4, Post Sillewada, Tahsil Saoner,
District Nagpur.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through its
Secretary, Department of Home Mantralaya,
Mumbai-32.
2) The Commandant, The State Reserve Police
Force, Group No.4, Hingna, Nagpur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr.C.S.Kaptan, sr.counsel with Mr.P.S.Chawhan, counsel
for the petitioner.
Mr.K.L.Dharmadhikari, Asstt.Govt.Pleader for the respondents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
::: Uploaded on - 17/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 19/10/2016 00:30:51 :::
1410wp2620-2625.13-Judgment 2/7
WRIT PETITION NO. 2622 OF 2013
PETITIONER :- Ravindra Kashiram Bilone, aged about 25
years, Occupation-Unemployed, R/o New
Koradi, Ward No.4, Khogali Road, Near
Hanuman Mandir, Tah. Kamptee, District
Nagpur.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through its
Secretary, Department of Home Mantralaya,
Mumbai-32.
ig 2) The Commandant, The State Reserve Police
Force, Group No.4, Hingna, Nagpur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr.C.S.Kaptan, sr.counsel with Mr.P.S.Chawhan, counsel
for the petitioner.
Mr.K.L.Dharmadhikari, Asstt.Govt.Pleader for the respondents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WRIT PETITION NO. 2623 OF 2013
PETITIONER :- Vijay S/o Shobhanath Tiwari, aged about 24
years, Occupation-Unemployed, R/o Plot
No.20, Bhupesh Nagar, Narmada Society
Borgaon Road, Nagpur.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through its
Secretary, Department of Home Mantralaya,
Mumbai-32.
2) The Commandant, The State Reserve Police
Force, Group No.4, Hingna, Nagpur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr.C.S.Kaptan, sr.counsel with Mr.P.S.Chawhan, counsel
for the petitioner.
Mr.A.A.Madiwale, Asstt.Govt.Pleader for the respondents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
::: Uploaded on - 17/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 19/10/2016 00:30:51 :::
1410wp2620-2625.13-Judgment 3/7
WRIT PETITION NO. 2624 OF 2013
PETITIONER :- Khushal S/o Champatrao Kohale, aged about
29 years, Occupation-Unemployed, R/o
Village Rajani, Post Sawargaon, Tahsil Katol,
District Nagpur.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through its
Secretary, Department of Home Mantralaya,
Mumbai-32.
2) The Commandant, The State Reserve Police
ig Force, Group No.4, Hingna, Nagpur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr.C.S.Kaptan, sr.counsel with Mr.P.S.Chawhan, counsel
for the petitioner.
Mr.A.A.Madiwale, Asstt.Govt.Pleader for the respondents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 2625 OF 2013
PETITIONER :- Ranvir s/o Lallan Pande, aged about 24
years, Occupation-Unemployed, R/o Vaishali
Nagar, Sirke Layout, Hingna Road, Nagpur.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through its
Secretary, Department of Home Mantralaya,
Mumbai-32.
2) The Commandant, The State Reserve Police
Force, Group No.4, Hingna, Nagpur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr.C.S.Kaptan, sr.counsel with Mr.P.S.Chawhan, counsel
for the petitioner.
Mr.A.A.Madiwale, Asstt.Govt.Pleader for the respondents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
::: Uploaded on - 17/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 19/10/2016 00:30:51 :::
1410wp2620-2625.13-Judgment 4/7
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK &
KUM. INDIRA JAIN, JJ.
DATED : 14.10.2016
O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per Smt.Vasanti A. Naik, J.)
Since the issue involved in these writ petitions is identical and
since similar orders passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal are
challenged therein, they are heard together and are decided by this common
judgment.
By these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the orders
of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, dated 05/11/2012 and
29/11/2012, dismissing the original applications filed by the petitioners.
Applications were invited by the respondents vide advertisement
dated 04/02/2010, for appointment on the post of armed police constables. In
all 94 posts were advertised and posts were earmarked separately for the open
category, scheduled tribes, scheduled castes, other backward classes, special
backward classes and vimukja jati-A. The petitioners had applied for the posts
reserved for the different categories. The petitioners participated in the
selection process and the petitioners were placed at Sr.No.1 or 2 or 3 in the
waiting lists prepared for each of the categories. According to the petitioners,
since some of the candidates had not joined on the posts for which they were
selected and some of the candidates had joined and then left the job, the
petitioners made a representation to the respondents to appoint them on the
1410wp2620-2625.13-Judgment 5/7
posts of armed police constables. Since the representation was not favourably
considered, the petitioners filed original applications before the Maharashtra
Administrative Tribunal that were decided by separate orders by the tribunal
that are impugned in these petitions.
Shri Kaptan, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners,
submitted that since the names of the petitioners were included in the waiting
lists and that since some of the selected candidates had not joined and since
some of the appointed candidates had left the job after joining, it was
necessary for the respondents to have appointed the petitioners on the vacant
posts of armed police constables. It is stated that the waiting lists were to
expire only on the completion of one year from the date of publishing of the
waiting lists and it was, therefore, incumbent on the part of the respondents to
have appointed the petitioners on the vacancies that arose within one year
from the date of the display of the waiting lists. It is submitted that it was
necessary for the respondents to appoint the petitioners on the posts that
became vacant during the period of one year from the date of the display of
the waiting lists. It is stated that instead of abiding by the circular dated
27/06/2008, the respondents wrongly held that the waiting lists got exhausted
on the completion of six months from the date of the display of the waiting
lists. It is submitted that the waiting lists were liable should have been kept
alive for a period of one year as per the circular dated 27/06/2008 and the
petitioners should have been appointed in the vacancies that arose within one
year.
1410wp2620-2625.13-Judgment 6/7
5. The learned assistant government pleaders supported the orders of
the tribunal and submitted that though the circular dated 27/06/2008
provided that the waiting lists could be kept alive for a period of one year, by
the subsequent circular dated 16/01/2010, the life of waiting lists was reduced
to six months. It is stated that during the first six months from the date of
display of the waiting lists, there was no vacancy in any of the categories for
which the petitioners had applied. It is submitted that the respondents took a
conscious decision of not appointing the petitioners in the absence of
vacancies. The learned assistant government pleaders sought for the dismissal
of the writ petitions.
6. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of
the impugned orders, we find that there is no scope for interference with the
impugned orders, in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. Firstly, the selection was
made in the year 2010 and the waiting lists were published in April 2010. It is
well settled that even a selected candidate does not have a right to claim the
appointment on the post for which he is selected. The petitioners were not
selected for appointment on the posts of armed police constables and their
names were placed at Sr.Nos.1 or 2 or 3 in the waiting lists. Merely because
some of the candidates that had joined on the posts of armed police constables
had left the job, the petitioners could not have claimed their appointment on
the posts of armed police constables. It is well settled that the select list gets
exhausted as soon as the selected candidate is appointed on the post for which
he is selected. It would be worthwhile to refer to the judgments of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, reported in AIR 2013 SC 3580 (Raj Rishi Mehra and others
1410wp2620-2625.13-Judgment 7/7
v. State of Punjab and another) and (2009) 1 SCC 386 (Mukul Saikia and
others v. State of Assam and others) in this regard. It is held by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the said reported judgments that once the appointments are
made against the advertised posts, the select list gets exhausted and the
candidates below the last appointee cannot claim appointment against the post
which is subsequently available. The tribunal has recorded a finding of fact in
the cases in hand that no vacancies were available at the relevant time and
hence, the petitioners, who were placed at Sr.Nos.1 or 2 or 3 in the waiting
lists could not have been appointed on the posts for which they had applied, in
the absence of vacancies. The tribunal held that 94 vacancies that were
advertised were not actual vacancies, but they included anticipated vacancies
as well. While dismissing the original applications, the tribunal relied on the
circular dated 16/01/2010 that provided that the life of the waiting lists was
six months and not one year as provided by the circular dated 27/06/2008.
We do not find any illegality in the orders of the tribunal, more so when a wait
listed candidate would not have any right whatsoever to seek his appointment
on the post for which he/she had applied.
7. Since the orders of the Tribunal are just and proper, we dismiss
the writ petitions with no order as to costs. Rule stands discharged.
JUDGE JUDGE
KHUNTE
