Sandip S/O Ramesh Khobragade vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 1923 Bom

                                                                                        wp4430.13.odt

                                                      1

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                             NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

                                 WRIT PETITION NO.4430/2013


     PETITIONER:                Sandip s/o Ramesh Khobragade 
                                Aged about 27 years, Occ. Student, 
                                r/o Jamna Nagar, Ward No.2, Mundikota, 
                                Tahsil, Tiroda, District : Gondia. 

                                               ...VERSUS...

     RESPONDENTS :    1.  State of Maharashtra through 
                           Collector, Amravati District, Amravati 
                           & President District Selection Committee, 
                           Amravati. 

                                2.  Zilla Parishad, Amravati, 
                                     Through its Chief Officer and 
                                     Member District Selection Committee, 
                                     Amravati. 

                                3.  Education Officer & Member/Secretary, 
                                     Zilla Parishad, Amravati. 

                                4.  Pradnya Uttamrao Ramteke, 
                                     Aged about Major, Occ. Student, 
                                     r/o Shanti Nagar, Badnera Road, Amravati. 

     --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Ms N.P. Mehta, AGP for respondent no.1
                       Shri J.B. Kasat, Advocate for respondent no.4
     --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                    CORAM  :  SMT. VASANTI  A  NAIK, AND
                                                                      MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.

                                                    DATE    :   21.04.2017 





                                                                                wp4430.13.odt



     ORAL JUDGMENT   (PER : SMT. VASANTI  A.  NAIK, J.)

By this petition, the petitioner challenges the action on the

part of the respondent nos.1 to 3 in selecting and appointing the

respondent no.4 as a special teacher, in pursuance of an advertisement

issued by the respondent no.2 on 26.12.2011.

The respondent no.2 published an advertisement inviting

applications for appointment on several posts one of them being a special

teacher for visually impaired. According to the advertisement, the

requisite qualification for appointment to the post of special teacher for

visually impaired was a Bachelor's Degree either in Arts or Science and a

certificate from the Rehabilitation Council of India. According to the

petitioner, the interviews were conducted on 14.7.2012 and though the

respondent no.4 did not appear in the interview, she was selected and

appointed to the post of special teacher. It is also the case of the petitioner

that the respondent no.4 did not possess the requisite training

qualification, as required by the advertisement. It is stated that the

respondent no.4 possesses the qualification for teaching the primary

classes and not the secondary classes. It is further stated that though the

post was earmarked for the visually impaired, the respondent no.4, who

does not suffer from the said disability, was considered and appointed on

the post of special teacher.

wp4430.13.odt

Ms Mehta, the learned Assistant Government Pleader

appearing for the respondent no.1 and Shri Kasat, the learned Counsel for

the respondent no.4 have denied the claim made by the petitioner in the

instant petition. It is stated that the respondent no.4 was duly qualified to

hold the post of the special teacher. It is stated that the respondent no.4

had passed the B.Ed. Special Education (Visual Impairment) on 3.8.2011

and though she was eligible for appointment on the said post her

candidature was wrongfully rejected and she was not called for interview.

It is stated that after the representation made by the respondent no.4 was

allowed she was interviewed and since she had secured more marks than

the petitioner she was appointed on the post of special teacher for visually

impaired.

On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on a

perusal of the advertisement as also the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf

of the respondent no.4 and the documents annexed thereto, it appears

that there is no merit in the case of the petitioner. We do not find that the

post of special teacher for visually impaired was reserved for a person

who was having visual disability. The post of a special teacher for

teaching visually impaired was advertised. We find that the respondent

no.4 possesses the required diploma in education (visual impairment). No

doubt the respondent no.4 was initially not called for the interview on an

wp4430.13.odt

assumption that the respondent no.4 did not possess the training

qualification but after her representation was allowed, she was called for

the interview and since she had secured more marks than the petitioner,

she was appointed on the post of special teacher. In the absence of any

direction restraining the respondent nos.1 to 3 from making the

appointment of the respondent no.4 in the said post, the respondent no.4

is working on the post of special teacher for nearly four years.

In the circumstances of the case, since we do not find any

merit in the case of the petitioner, the writ petition is liable to be

dismissed. Hence, we dismiss the writ petition as such with no order as to

costs. Rule stands discharged.

                  JUDGE                                                             JUDGE




     Wadkar