Bombay High Court
Pratibha Niketan Education ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 19 September, 2016
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala
47wp12156-15.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 12156 OF 2015
1. Pratibha Niketan Education
society, Nanded,
Through its General Secretary
Sakharam Digambarrao Mahajan
Aged 72 years, Occu: Retired
Principal R/o 53, Bhagyanagar,
Nanded.
2. Umesh s/o Madhukarrao Chalikwar, ... Petitioners
Aged 36 years, Occu: Service,
R/o Block No.5, chintamani Apart.
Chaitanya Nagar Road, Nanded.
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Higher and Technical Education
Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Director of Higher Education,
Maharashtra Government, Central
Building, Pune.
3. The Joint Director of Higher ... Respondents.
Education, Nanded Region, Nanded.
Mr. Suresh M. Kulkarni, Advocate for the Petitioners
Mr. V. S. Badakh, AGP for the Respondents.
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
K. L. WADANE, JJ.
DATE : 19th September, 2016
JUDGMENT:
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With
consent of parties, the petition is taken up for final
disposal
47wp12156-15.odt
3. Mr. Kulkarni, the learned counsel for the
petitioners, submits that petitioner No.2 was appointed
in the year 2013 as Library Clerk on a sanctioned
vacant post. Petitioner No.2 belongs to physically
disabled category. The said post, though was reserved
for ST category candidate, no candidate from ST
category was available and as such petitioner N.2 is
appointed. There are still vacant posts from the open
category. Petitioner No.1 has filed an undertaking to
this Court that the same would be filled in from the ST
category candidates.
4. The learned AGP states that reservation for
physically disabled candidate is altogether a different
reservation and cannot be equated with the reservation
for ST category. The learned AGP further submits that
as petitioner No.2 belongs to open category, proposal
seeking approval to his appointment has been rightly
rejected.
5. We have considered the submissions.
6. The fact that the post on which petitioner No.2
was appointed was reserved for ST category is not
disputed. It is also not disputed that petitioner No.2
belongs to physically disabled category.
47wp12156-15.odt
7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioners that there are still vacant posts for open
category candidates and the same posts would be filled
from the reserved category candidates. The said
undertaking is accepted.
8. Petitioner No.2 is working since the year 2013.
Considering the undertaking given by petitioner No.1
and that there are still vacant posts available with
petitioner No.1 institution and the same are to be
filled in from the ST category candidates, we quash and
set aside the impugned order and direct respondent No.
3- the Joint Director of Higher Education to reconsider
the proposal seeking approval to appointment of
petitioner No.2 and shall not reject it only on the
ground that the said post was reserved for ST Category
candidates. The said exercise shall be done
expeditiously, preferably within four months from
today.
9. Rule is made absolute accordingly. There shall
be no order as to costs.
(K. L. WADANE, J.) (S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. )
JPC
