Bombay High Court
Shri Wacchandas S/O Parmanand ... vs D.R Punjabrao Deshmukh Krishi ... on 1 September, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
WP 3632.05 [J].odt 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.3632 OF 2005
Shri Wachandas s/o Parmanand Badole,
Aged about 40 years,
Assistant Professor (Agricultural Chemistry
And Soil Science), R/o. 21, Gedam Layout,
Trimurti Nagar, Behind Rajiv Gandhi Garden,
Nagpur-22. .. Petitioner
.. Versus ..
1] Dr. Punjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth,
Krishi Nagar, through its Registrar, Akola.
2] Dr. D.B. Patil,
Project Investigator AICRP of Micro
Nutrients Department of Agriculture
Chemistry, Dr. Punjabrao Deshmukh
Krishi Vidyapeeth, Krishi Nagar,
Akola.
3] Dr. S.G. Wankhede,
Assistant Professor of Agriculture
Chemistry AICRP on Medicinal Plants
and Aromatic, Dr. Punjabrao Deshmukh
Krishi Vidyapeeth, Krishi Nagar,
Akola.
4] S.S. Rewatkar,
Assistant Professor, Dr. Punjabrao
Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth,
Krishi Nagar, Akola.
5] Union of India, through the Secretary,
Department of Personnel and Training,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances
and Educations, Government of India,
New Delhi.
6] The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Social Justice and Special Assistant
Department, Mantralaya Extension
Building, Mumbai-400 032.
::: Uploaded on - 03/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 04/09/2016 00:42:21 :::
WP 3632.05 [J].odt 2
7] The Maharashtra Council of Agricultural
Educational and Research, Through its
Director General, 132-B, Bhamburda,
Bhosle Nagar, Pune-411 117. .. Respondents
..........
None for the petitioner,
Shri A.R. Patil, counsel for respondent no.1,
Shri A.V. Palshikar, A.G.P. for respondent no.6,
Shri N.S. Khubalkar, counsel for respondent no.7.
..........
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK AND
KUM. INDIRA JAIN, JJ.
DATED : SEPTEMBER 01, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)
By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a declaration that the
process of selection, initiated by the respondent no.1-University in pursuance
of the advertisement, dated 15.10.2003 is bad in law. The petitioner has also
questioned the appointments of the respondent nos.2 to 4 on the posts of
Associate Professors in Agricultural Chemistry and Soil Science.
The respondent no.1-University published an advertisement on
15.10.2003 inviting applications for appointment on several posts. The
petitioner had applied for one of the three posts of Associate Professor in
Agricultural Chemistry and Soil Science, as advertised by the respondent no.1-
University. It was the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was the only
candidate with physical disability and it was, therefore, necessary for the
respondent no.1-University to appoint the petitioner on one of the posts of
Associate Professor in Agricultural Chemistry and Soil Science. The petitioner
has challenged the advertisement as well as the selection process, as the
respondent no.1-University had not earmarked one of the three posts of
Associate Professor in Agricultural Chemistry and Soil Science for a physically
challenged person.
Shri A.R. Patil, the learned counsel for the respondent no.1-
University, has opposed the prayers made by the petitioner in the instant
petition. It is stated that since only three posts of Associate Professors in
Agricultural Chemistry and Soil Science were advertised by the respondent
no.1-University, the respondent no.1 could not have earmarked one post of
Associate Professor in the said discipline for the physically challenged person.
It is stated that the petitioner cannot challenge the action on the part of the
respondent no.1-University of not earmarking a post for the physically
challenged, as the petitioner had participated in the selection process. It is
stated that if the petitioner was aggrieved by the non reservation of one of the
posts of Associate Professor in Agricultural Chemistry and Soil Science, the
petitioner should have challenged the advertisement before participating in the
selection process. The learned counsel relied on the decisions reported in
(2009) 3 SCC 227 (Amlan Jyoti Borooah .vs. State of Assam and others) and
(2011) 1 SCC 150 (Vijendra Kumar Verma .vs. Public Service Commission,
Uttarakhand and others) in this regard. It is submitted that the respondent
nos.2 to 4 were more meritorious than the petitioner and hence they were
appointed as Associate Professors in Agricultural Chemistry and Soil Science.
It is stated that the petitioner applied in pursuance of a subsequent
advertisement issued by the respondent no.1-University in the year 2007 and is
appointed on the post of Associate Professor in the year 2008. It is stated that
in the circumstances of the case the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
On hearing the learned counsel for the respondents, we find that
no case is made out by the petitioner for challenging the advertisement. In our
view, the petitioner cannot challenge the selection process on the ground that
the respondent no.1-University was required to advertise one post of Associate
Professor in Agricultural Chemistry and Soil Science for a physically challenged
person. If the petitioner was aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the
respondent no.1-University in earmarking one post of Associate Professor in
Agricultural Chemistry and Soil Science for the physically challenged person,
the petitioner should have challenged the advertisement before participating in
the selection process. The learned counsel for the respondent no.1-University
has rightly relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to
herein-above. It also appears that the respondent nos.2 to 4 were more
meritorious than the petitioner and hence, after considering the candidature
and the merit of the petitioner vis-a-vis the other candidates, the respondent
no.1 had appointed the respondent nos.2 to 4 as Associate Professors in
Agricultural Chemistry and Soil Science. The respondent nos.2 to 4 are
working on the said posts since 2005. In the circumstances of the case, no
case is made out by the petitioner for challenging the advertisement as also the
appointment of the respondent nos.2 to 4.
As the petition is devoid of merit, we dismiss the same with no
order as to costs. Rule stands discharged.
JUDGE JUDGE
Gulande, PA
C E R T I F I C A T E
"I certify that this Judgment/Order uploaded is a true and correct copy of
original signed Judgment/Order."
Uploaded by : A.S. Gulande, P.A. Uploaded on : 3.9.2016.
