Bombay High Court
Shri Rajnish Marotrao Andhe vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 19 September, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
1909wp4894.13-Judgment 1/8
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 4894 OF 2013
PETITIONER :- Shri Rajnish Marotrao Andhe, aged about 27
years, Occ.- Nil, resident of Sakritola, Post -
Satgaon, Tah. - Salekasa, District Gondia.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1. The State of Maharashtra, through its
ig Secretary, Rural Development and Water
Resource Depatment, Mantralaya, Mumbai-
32.
2. The Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur
Division, Civil Lines, Nagpur.
3. The Collector and Chairman, District
Selection Committee, Bhandara District,
Bhandara.
4. The Chief Executive Officer and Member,
District Selection Committee, Zilla Parishad,
Bhandara.
5. The District Health Officer, Zilla Parishad,
Bhandara.
6. Shri Shailendra Vijay Yelme, Aushadh
Nirmata, Primary Health Centre, Konda,
Panchayat Samiti, Tah.-Paoni, District -
Bhandara.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Vishal Anand, counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. A.A.Madiwale, Asstt.Govt.Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Mr. R.S.Khobragade, counsel for the respondent Nos.4 and 5.
Mr. G.G.Bade, counsel for the respondent No.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
::: Uploaded on - 22/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2016 00:42:11 :::
1909wp4894.13-Judgment 2/8
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK,
KUM.INDIRA JAIN, JJ.
DATED : 19.09.2016
O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per Smt. Vasanti A Naik, J.)
By this Writ Petition the petitioner challenges the
appointment of the respondent No.6 on the post of Pharmacist. The
petitioner seeks a direction against the respondent Nos.3 to 5 to appoint
the petitioner on the said post.
2. Few facts giving rise to the petition are stated thus :-
The respondent Nos.3 to 5 had issued an advertisement on
08/05/2013 inviting applications for appointment on the post of
Pharmacists. The petitioner as also the respondent No.6 had applied for
the post of Pharmacist, that was earmarked for the Scheduled Tribes.
The last date for submission of the application was 21/05/2013 and
after conducting the written examination, the interviews were held on
27/06/2013. According to the advertisement, a candidate was required
to possess a Secondary School Certificate, a Diploma in Pharmacy and
he/she was also required to be registered with the Maharashtra State
Pharmacy Council. In the test conducted by the respondent Nos.3 to 5,
the petitioner admittedly secured lower marks, inasmuch as the
respondent No.6 had secured 110 marks as against 93.64 marks secured
by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, though the respondent
1909wp4894.13-Judgment 3/8
No.6 possessed a Secondary School Certificate as also a Diploma in
Pharmacy, the respondent No.6 was not registered with the
Maharashtra State Pharmacy Council either on the date of the
application, i.e. on 21/05/2013 or on the date of the interview, i.e. on
27/06/2013. The petitioner has, therefore, challenged the appointment
of the respondent No.6 on the post of Pharmacist.
3. Shri Vishal Anand, the learned counsel for the petitioner,
submitted that the respondent Nos.3 to 5 were not justified in
considering the candidature of the respondent No.6, as the respondent
No.6 was not qualified for appointment on the last date for filing of the
application, on 21/05/2013. It is stated that the respondent No.6 did
not possess the registration certificate of the Maharashtra State
Pharmacy Council either while submitting the application for
appointment or on the date of the interview, on 27/06/2013. It is stated
that the Committee ought not have granted time to the respondent No.6
to produce the registration certificate subsequently and the submission
of the registration certificate by the respondent No.6 on 28/06/2013
ought not have been accepted. It is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held from time to time that when applications are called, the
eligibility of the candidates would be required to be judged with
reference to the date of the application alone. It is stated that the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the judgment in Civil Appeal
No.6116 of 2013 (Rakesh Kumar Sharma v. Government of NCT of Delhi
1909wp4894.13-Judgment 4/8
& Ors., after considering the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court from time to time that a candidate would not be eligible
for appointment, if he does not possess the requisite qualification on the
last date of submission of the application. It is submitted that a
candidate applying for the post of Pharmacist was required to possess a
Secondary School Certificate, a Diploma in Pharmacy and he was also
required to be registered with the Maharashtra State Pharmacy Council.
It is stated that since the respondent No.6 was not registered with the
Maharashtra State Pharmacy Council, till 28/06/2013, his candidature
is liable to be rejected.
4. Shri Khobragade, the learned counsel for the respondent
Nos.4 and 5, has supported the action of the respondents and submitted
that requisite qualification was possessed by the respondent No.6 on the
date of the application, inasmuch as the respondent No.6 possessed a
Secondary School Certificate and also a Diploma in Pharmacy. It is
stated that on the date of interview, i.e. on 27/06/2013, the respondent
No.6 had informed the respondent Nos.3 to 5 that he had applied for
registration of the Maharashtra State Pharmacy Council and he was
likely to receive the registration certificate within a couple of days. It is
stated that the Committee took a conscious decision to permit the
respondent No.6 to produce the registration certificate immediately on
the receipt of the same, as the respondent No.6 was admittedly more
meritorious than the petitioner, inasmuch as he has secured 110 marks
as against 93.64 marks secured by the petitioner.
1909wp4894.13-Judgment 5/8
5. Shri Bade, the learned counsel for the respondent No.6,
also supported the action on the part of the respondent Nos.3 to 5 in
appointing the respondent No.6 on the post of Pharmacist from the
Scheduled Tribes category. It is stated that the respondent No.6 was
admittedly more meritorious than the petitioner and that he possessed
the requisite qualification on the date of the application. It is stated that
the respondent No.6 had applied for registration and the registration
certificate was secured by the respondent No.6 on 28/06/2013, that is,
immediate next day, after the interviews. It is submitted that in the
circumstances of the case, the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
would not be applicable. It is further submitted that the respondent
No.6 is working as a Pharmacist since last more than three years and
this Court may not disturb the appointment of the respondent No.6, in
the circumstances of the case.
6. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a
perusal of the advertisement and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, it appears that it would not be proper in the interest of justice to
disturb the appointment of the respondent No.6 on the post of
Pharmacist. Admittedly, the respondent No.6 has secured more marks
than the petitioner. The respondent No.6 is the most meritorious
candidate from the Scheduled Tribes. There is no dispute that the
respondent No.6 possesses the Secondary School Certificate and also
the Diploma in Pharmacy. One of the other requirements, as per the
1909wp4894.13-Judgment 6/8
advertisement, was that a candidate should possess the registration
certificate of the Maharashtra State Pharmacy Council. Though the
respondent No.6 did not possess the registration certificate on the last
date of filing of the application or on the date of interview, the same
was secured by the respondent No.6 immediately on the next date i.e.,
on 28/06/2013. The registration certificate would only demonstrate
the fact that a person securing the certificate is registered as a
Pharmacist and he/she is entitled to all the privileges granted under the
Pharmacy Act, 1948. Admittedly, the respondent No.6 had secured the
Diploma in Pharmacy and he was entitled to be registered as a
Pharmacist. No doubt, on the date of the application, the respondent
No.6 did not possess the registration certificate of the Maharashtra State
Pharmacy Council, however, that would not mean that the respondent
No.6 was not qualified for appointment. The respondent No.6 possessed
the Secondary School Certificate as also the Diploma in Pharmacy,
which was the requisite qualification. The respondent No.6 had also
applied for the registration certificate to the Maharashtra State
Pharmacy Council and considering the aforesaid position, the Selection
Committee decided to grant a couple of days to the respondent No.6 to
produce the registration certificate. We do not find any illegality in the
action on the part of the respondent Nos.3 to 5 in appointing the
respondent No.6 on the post of Pharmacist. The judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.6116 of 2013 is not applicable
to the case in hand. In the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the
prerequisite qualification for the post of trained graduate Teacher was
1909wp4894.13-Judgment 7/8
B.Ed. and admittedly, the appellant before the Hon'ble Supreme court
did not possess B.Ed. examination qualification on the date of
submission of the application, as the appellant had appeared for the
B.Ed. Examination, but the results of B.Ed. were not declared till the
last date of application, 29/10/2008. The result of B.Ed. Examination
was declared only on 28/11/2008 and in the aforesaid set of facts, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the appellant in that case did not
possess the requisite qualification on the last date of submission of the
application, though he applied, by representing that he possessed the
same. The facts involved in the matter before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court are distinguishable and the judgment in Civil Appeal No.6116 of
2013 cannot therefore be applied to the facts in the instant case. As
already stated herein above, the respondent No.6 possessed the
Secondary School Certificate and a Diploma in Pharmacy and before the
appointment was made, the respondent No.6 also produced the
registration certificate from the Maharashtra State Pharmacy Council.
In the circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to interfere with
the appointment of the respondent No.6. In the result, the writ petition
fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Rule stands discharged.
JUDGE JUDGE
DESHMUKH / KHUNTE
1909wp4894.13-Judgment 8/8
C E R T I F I C A T E
I certify that this Judgment uploaded is a true and correct copy of
original signed Judgment.
Uploaded by : G.S.Khunte, Uploaded on : 22/09/2016
P.A.to Hon'ble Judge
