Bombay High Court
Satyendra Ratanlal Gedam vs Maharashtra State Electricity & 3 ... on 22 September, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
WPs 2126/00 & 4929/03 1 Common Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION No. 2126/2000
Vandana w/o Prakash Bhalavi,
aged 34 years, r/o Type C-1,
M.S.E.B. Colony, Mankapur, Nagpur. PETITIONER
.....VERSUS.....
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through the Secretary,
Tribal Welfare Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. Maharashtra State Electricity Board,
through its Chairman,
Prakashgadh, Mumbai.ig
3. Committee for Scrutiny & Verification
of Tribe Claims,
through its Secretary,
Adivasi Vikas Bhavan,
Giripeth, Nagpur.
4. Project Officer,
Ekatmik Adivasi Vikas Prakalpa,
District-Nagpur. RESPONDENTS
Shri S.A. Chaudhari, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri I.J Damle, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent nos.1, 3 and 4.
Mrs. U.A. Patil, counsel for the respondent no.2.
WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 4929/2003
Satyendra s/o Ratanlal Gedam,
aged 28 years, r/o 237, Khalasi Line,
Mohan Nagar, Nagpur. PETITIONER
.....VERSUS.....
1. Maharashtra State Electricity Board,
through its Chairman,
"Prakashgad", Bandra (East),
Mumbai.
2. State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Tribal Welfare Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
3. Project Officer,
Ekatmik Adivasi Vikas Prakalpa,
Nagpur, Tahsil & District Nagpur.
::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2016 00:14:01 :::
WPs 2126/00 & 4929/03 2 Common Judgment
4. Chief Engineer,
Nagpur Urban Zone,
Maharashtra State Electricity Board,
Nagpur. RESPONDENTS
Mrs.Ritu P. Jog holding for Shri A.C. Dharmadhikari, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri I.J Damle, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent nos.2 and 3.
Shri R.E. Moharir, counsel for the respondent no.1 and 4.
CORAM :SMT.VASANTI A NAIK AND
KUM. INDIRA JAIN, JJ.
DATE : 22 ND
SEPTEMBER, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT.VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)
Since the issue involved in these writ petitions is
interconnected and the parties to the writ petitions are the same, they are
heard together and are decided by this common judgment.
2. Writ Petition No.2126 of 2000 is filed by petitioner
Vandana for a direction against the respondent-Maharashtra State
Electricity Board that she should be appointed on the post of Lower
Division Clerk as per the select list. Petitioner Vandana has also
challenged the order of the Scrutiny Committee, dated 03.05.2000
invalidating her claim of belonging to the Scheduled Tribes. Writ Petition
No.4929 of 2003 is filed by Satyendra challenging the selection of
Vandana and seeking a direction against the respondent-Maharashtra
State Electricity Board to appoint him on the post of Lower Division
Clerk.
WPs 2126/00 & 4929/03 3 Common Judgment
3. In pursuance of an advertisement issued by the respondent-
Maharashtra State Electricity Board inviting applications for
appointment on the post of Lower Division Clerk, Satyendra as well
as Vandana applied for the posts that were earmarked for the
Scheduled Tribes. Four posts of Lower Division Clerks were earmarked
for the Scheduled Tribes. The select list was published by the
respondent-Maharashtra State Electricity Board and Vandana was
placed at Serial Number 4 in the select list. Vandana belonged to the
Scheduled Castes by birth and since she was married to a person
belonging to the Scheduled Tribes, she had claimed the post of Lower
Division Clerk that was meant for the Scheduled Tribes. The caste claim
of Vandana of belonging to the Scheduled Tribes was, however,
invalidated by the Scrutiny Committee.
4. Since the respondent-Maharashtra State Electricity Board did
not appoint Vandana on the post of Lower Division Clerk in view of the
invalidation of her tribe claim, she had filed Writ Petition No.2126 of
2000 seeking a direction against the respondent-Maharashtra State
Electricity Board to appoint her on the said post. The order of the
Scrutiny Committee was also challenged. In the writ petition filed by
Vandana, an application was made by petitioner Satyendra seeking
permission to intervene. The said application was dismissed and
Satyendra was granted liberty to file appropriate proceedings. Satyendra
WPs 2126/00 & 4929/03 4 Common Judgment
has, therefore, filed Writ Petition No.4929 of 2003 seeking his
appointment on the post of Lower Division Clerk that was meant for the
Scheduled Tribes as according to him, if Vandana was not appointed on
the fourth post that was earmarked for the Scheduled Tribes, he would be
entitled for appointment as he was placed at Serial Number 1 in the
waiting list. In the writ petition filed by Vandana, this Court had directed
the respondent-Maharashtra State Electricity Board to provisionally
appoint Vandana and the said order was challenged by the respondent-
Maharashtra State Electricity Board before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
However, before the Hon'ble Supreme Court could interfere with the
interim order passed in favour of Vandana, the respondent-Maharashtra
State Electricity Board had provisionally appointed Vandana. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court stayed the interim order that directed the provisional
appointment of Vandana and directed that the fourth post be kept vacant
during the pendency of the writ petition. Unfortunately, the writ petition
filed by Vandana is coming up for hearing after a period of sixteen years
and the writ petition filed by Satyendra in the year 2003 is being heard
after thirteen years.
5. Shri Chaudhari, the learned counsel for petitioner-Vandana,
submitted that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in
AIR 1996 SC 1011 (Mrs.Valsamma Paul Versus Cochin University &
Others WITH Kerala Public Service Commission Versus Dr.Kanjamma
WPs 2126/00 & 4929/03 5 Common Judgment
Alex & Another) cannot be made applicable to Vandana inasmuch as
Vandana belonged to the Scheduled Castes by birth and had married a
person belonging to the Scheduled Tribes. It is stated that the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that a woman marrying a person
belonging to a reserved class would not be entitled to the benefits of a
reserved class to which the husband belongs, would not apply to the case
of petitioner-Vandana. It is stated that since petitioner Vandana was
selected as per the select list published by the respondent-Maharashtra
State Electricity Board in the year 2000, Vandana is entitled to be
appointed on the said post.
6. Mrs. Jog, the learned counsel for petitioner Satyendra in Writ
Petition No.4929 of 2003, submitted that if Vandana is not eligible for
appointment on the fourth post of Lower Division Clerk that was
earmarked for the Scheduled Tribes, Satyendra would be entitled for
appointment as he was placed at Serial Number 1 in the waiting list.
It is submitted that since Vandana is not entitled to appointment, a
direction should be issued to the respondent-Maharashtra State Electricity
Board to appoint Satyendra on the post of the Lower Division Clerk. It is
stated that even if it is assumed that Vandana was appointed on the post
on which she was selected, the appointment being clearly illegal, would
be non-est.
WPs 2126/00 & 4929/03 6 Common Judgment
7. Shri Moharir and Mrs. Patil, the learned counsel for the
respondent-Maharashtra State Electricity Board, submitted that after a
lapse of more than sixteen years, this Court may not issue any direction
against the respondent-Maharashtra State Electricity Board for
appointment of either Vandana or Satyendra on the post of Lower
Division Clerk that was advertised some time in the year 1999-2000. It is
submitted that a select list gets exhausted within a reasonable time from
the declaration of the same. It is submitted that it is provided in various
resolutions of the State Governments that a select list gets exhausted
within a year or two from the completion of the selection process and also
gets exhausted as soon as a candidate is appointed on the post that was
advertised. It is stated that if a candidate works on a post even for a day,
the select list gets exhausted and a person in the waiting list would not be
entitled for the appointment on the post that subsequently becomes
vacant. It is submitted that, in any case, neither a selected candidate nor
a waitlisted candidate has any right to seek appointment on the post that
is advertised. It is stated that in view of the aforesaid settled position of
law and in view of the fact that since the matters were pending before
this Court for several years, petitioners Vandana and Satyendra have
attained the age of 50 years and 37 years respectively, the petitioners
may not be thrust on the respondent-Maharashtra State Electricity
Board.
WPs 2126/00 & 4929/03 7 Common Judgment
8. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we find that
the relief sought by the petitioners cannot be granted in the circumstances
of the case. A direction cannot be issued in the case of Vandana against
the respondent-Maharashtra State Electricity Board to appoint her on a
post that was earmarked for the Scheduled Tribes. It is well settled that a
woman marrying to a man belonging to a particular reserved category
cannot seek the benefits that are meant for the category to which her
husband belongs. In view of the settled position of law, Vandana would
not be entitled for appointment on a post earmarked for the Scheduled
Tribes. The submission made on behalf of Vandana that as by birth,
Vandana belongs to the Scheduled Castes, she may be entitled to seek the
benefits of Scheduled Tribes to which her husband belongs as both the
categories fall in the reserved or the backward classes, is not well founded
and is liable to be rejected. In the circumstances of the case, the Scrutiny
Committee was not at fault in invalidating the claim of Vandana of
belonging to Scheduled Tribes.
9. In our view, it would not be proper, as submitted on behalf of
the respondent-Maharashtra State Electricity Board, to direct the
respondent-Maharashtra State Electricity Board to appoint Vandana or
Satyendra on the post of Lower Division Clerk that was advertised in the
year 1999-2000. Both the writ petitions were admitted and did not come
up for hearing for long. Vandana is now 50 years of age and Satyendra is
WPs 2126/00 & 4929/03 8 Common Judgment
37 years of age. At this age, it would not be proper for this Court to
thrust them on the respondent-Maharashtra State Electricity Board merely
because the name of one of them was found in the select list and the
name of the other was placed in the waiting list. It is rightly submitted on
behalf of the respondent-Maharashtra State Electricity Board that neither
a selected candidate nor a waitlisted candidate has a right of
appointment. In the circumstances of the case, it would not be in the
interest of justice to direct the respondent-Maharashtra State Electricity
Board to appoint Satyendra on the post of Lower Division Clerk that was
advertised in the year 1999-2000 merely because his name was placed at
Serial Number 1 in the waiting list. We find that though the selection of
Vandana was made in the year 2000, the writ petition is filed by
Satyendra on 07.11.2003. It is rightly submitted on behalf of the
respondent-Maharashtra State Electricity Board that the select list and the
waiting list would get exhausted after a couple of years. The submission
made on behalf of Satyendra that since Vandana was wrongly selected for
the said post and her appointment would have been illegal, Satyendra
would be entitled for appointment to the said post, is liable to be rejected.
10. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petitions stand
dismissed with no order as to costs. Rule stands discharged.
JUDGE JUDGE
APTE
WPs 2126/00 & 4929/03 9 Common Judgment
CERTIFICATE
I certify that this Judgment uploaded is a true and correct
copy of original signed Judgment.
Uploaded by: Rohit D. Apte. Uploaded on :27.09.2016.
