Bombay High Court
Mr. Patalya Langda Mawaskar vs State Of Maha., Through Sub ... on 22 September, 2016
Bench: B.R. Gavai
pil90.15 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.90 OF 2015.
PETITIONER: Mr.Patalya Langda Mawaskar,
aged about 74 years, President of
Adiwasi Vikas Samaj Sanghatana,
Melghat, having his office at Ward
No.4, Civil Lines, Dharni, Distt.
ig Amravati.
: VERSUS :
RESPONDENTS: 1) State of Maharashtra,
through Sub-Division Officer
Dharni, Distt.Amravati (Mah.)
2) Principal Secretary, Revenue and
Forest, having his office at Mantralaya
Mumbai, (Mah.)- 400032.
3) Secretary, Ministry of Home Deptt.
Having his office at Ministry Mumbai,
Maharashtra.
4) Secretary, Ministry of Tribal Affairs
having his office at Mantralaya, Mumbai,
Maharashtra.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Mr.N.B.Rathod, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.D.B.Thakare, AGP for respondent nos. 1 ro 4.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
CORAM: B.R.GAVAI AND
V.M.DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATE: 22nd SEPTEMBER, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R.Gavai, J.)
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard by
consent of learned counsel for both the parties.
2. Petitioner initially approached this Court being
aggrieved by the Notification dated 24th of August, 2015 vide
which one of the conditions for applying for the post of Police
Patil was that the candidate should possess immoveable property
in his own name. However, since in affidavit-in-reply State
Government has relied on the Government Resolution dated 7 th of
September, 1999, the petitioner has amended the petition and has
challenged the vires of condition that there should be landed
property in the name of candidate.
3. The issue is no more a res integra in view of the
judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Arun
Tukaram Patil ..vs.. State of Maharashtra and ors., reported in
1999(3) Mh.L.J. 594. It has been held in the said judgment that
the eligibility for the post of Police Patil is governed by the
Maharashtra Village Police Patils (Recruitment, Pay, Allowances
and other Conditions of Service) Order 1968. The Division Bench
found that Rule 3(c) of the said Order provides that no person
shall be eligible for being appointed as a Police Patil who is not a
resident of the village or one of the villages in case of group of
villages for which the appointed is to be made. Court further
found that Rule 5(2) provides that in making the selection the
competent authority shall take into consideration whether the
applicant is known to the villagers and is acquainted with all the
residents of the village and is possessed with landed property in
the village. The Court further found that the eligibility criteria
was provided only under Rule 3(c) and Rule 5(2) which dealt
with landed property, only provided for a preference to be given
to such a candidate.
4. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rajesh
Krishna Kale ..vs.. State of Maharashtra and ors. relying on the
judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Arun
Tukaram Patil (supra) in an unequivocal terms held that Rules did
not provide that it was an essential condition to own a landed
property for being considered to be appointed for the post of
Police Patil. The Court held that even if condition in the
Government Resolution is held to be mandatory, the said could
not override the statutory Rules.
5. By now, it is a settled principle of law that in case of
conflict between the subordinate legislation and the Government
Resolution, it is the subordinate legislation which will prevail over
the Government Resolution. Apart from that, a condition in the
matter of public employment which provides that the person must
possess landed property for being considered to be appointed in
the public office, in our considered view, would not stand to
scrutiny of Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution of India.
6. In that view of the matter, we find that the petition
deserves to be allowed.
7. The condition in Government Resolution dated 7 th of
September, 1999 and the impugned Notification dated 24 th of
August, 2015, which provides that the candidate eligible to be
appointed as a Police Patil (must possess) landed property in his
own name, is quashed and set aside.
Insofar as grievance of the petitioner in respect of
erroneous reservation of the post of Police Patil is concerned, we
grant liberty to the petitioner to approach the Collector or the
Sub-Divisional Officer who shall consider the grievance of the
petitioner on its own merits.
The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
JUDGE JUDGE
chute
ig CERTIFICATE
I Certify that this judgment/order uploaded is a true and correct
copy of original signed judgment/order.
Uploaded by : P.Z.Chute.
Uploaded on : 29/9/2016.
