Bombay High Court
Pradip Shivajirao Khade vs The State Of Mah & Ors on 5 December, 2017
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
(1) Writ Petition No. 4455/2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 4455 OF 2006
Pradeep Shivajirao Khade
Age : 25 years, occu.: nil
R/o "Pitrachaya", Panchshil Nagar,
Parali Vaidyanath, Tal.Parali,
District Beed. Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through the Secretary,
Agriculture Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. The Divisional Jt. Director
of Agriculture, Nagpur
Division, Nagpur.
3. The Commissioner of Agriculture,
Agricultural Commissioner's
Office, Maharashtra State,
Pune. Respondents.
***
Mr. U.B. Bondar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Smt. M.A. Deshpande, Addl.G.P. for respondent Nos.1to3
***
CORAM : RAVINDRA V.GHUGE &
SUNIL K.KOTWAL,JJ.
Reserved on : 23.11.2017.
Pronounced on : 05.12.2017.
(2) Writ Petition No. 4455/2006
JUDGMENT : (PER SUNIL K. KOTWAL,J.)
1. This Writ Petition is filed under Article
226 of the Constitution of India for quashment of
the order dated 13.04.2006 passed by the
Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter
referred as "MAT") in Original Application No.
1007/2004 and the order passed by Divisional Joint
Director of Agriculture, Nagpur Division dated
11.11.2004 and for issuance of directions to
respondent No.2 to appoint the petitioner on the
post of 'Krushi Sevak' w.e.f. 01.09.2004.
2. Respondent No.1 is the State of
Maharashtra. Respondent No.2 is the Divisional
Joint Director of Agriculture, Nagpur Division and
respondent No.3 is the Commissioner of
Agriculture, Maharashtra State, Pune.
3. In this proceeding the admitted facts in
between the parties are that on 25.02.2004 the
respondents advertised total 3954 posts of 'Krushi
Sevak', including 402 posts for Nagpur Region with
all details about the reservations. As per
(3) Writ Petition No. 4455/2006
vertical reservation, 24 posts were reserved for
NT(D) category. The petitioner being eligible and
qualified, applied for the post of 'Krushi Sevak'
by submitting an application dated 01.03.2004
alongwith necessary documents. On 16.08.2004,
respondent No.2 had passed an order in respect of
the selected candidates for the post of Krushi
Sevak. Name of the petitioner was shown at Sr.
No.4 from the category of "project affected
person". The petitioner also received a letter
dated 21.08.2004 informing him that he was
selected on the post of Krushi Sevak from the
category of 'project affected person' and he was
requested to remain present with the original
certificates for verification.
4. Contention of the petitioner is that when
he appeared before the concerned Officer with the
original certificate of project affected person,
the same was verified. However, later on the
petitioner came to know that his appointment was
cancelled. Therefore, the petitioner approached
the MAT by filing Original Application
(4) Writ Petition No. 4455/2006
No.1007/2004. However, after hearing the parties,
the same was rejected on 13.04.2006.
5. Contention of the petitioner is that
though he applied from NT(D) reserved category and
though out of 402 posts, 5% posts were reserved
for project affected persons, his appointment was
illegally cancelled on the ground that his
selection was from the category of "ex-serviceman"
and he failed to produce the requisite certificate
of ex-serviceman. According to the petitioner, in
fact, he never applied from the category of ex-
serviceman.
6. By filing reply affidavit, respondent
Nos.2 and 3 countered the claim of the petitioner
on the ground that at the time of the scrutiny of
the documents, it was found that the petitioner
was not eligible from the category of ex-
serviceman as he did not file the certificate of
ex-serviceman. According to the respondents, as
per the Government Resolution, 5% posts were
reserved for the project affected person,
including the earthquake affected candidates. 3%
(5) Writ Petition No. 4455/2006
quota was reserved for earthquake affected
candidates and only 2% quota was reserved for
NT(D) project affected persons. Therefore, out of
24 posts reserved for NT(D) candidates, as per
horizontal reservation, 12 posts were reserved
for NT(D) male candidates, one post was reserved
for earthquake affected person and 4 posts were
reserved for ex-serviceman. Considering only 2%
reservation for the project affected persons, out
of total 5% (including 3% for the earthquake
affected persons), no post can be carved out, as
result, for the project affected person in NT(D)
category.
7. Though initially the petitioner was
selected from NT(D) ex-serviceman category, at the
time of the verification of documents, he could
not submit the certificate of ex-serviceman. Even
in written examination, the petitioner secured
only 38.63% marks and his name was far below in
the merit list of NT(D) category candidates.
Therefore, the petitioner cannot be selected even
from the NT(D) male category. In the result, the
(6) Writ Petition No. 4455/2006
initial appointment of the petitioner from NT(D)
ex-serviceman category was legally cancelled by
the respondents.
8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the petitioner never applied from
NT(D) ex-serviceman category and he applied only
from the category of NT(D) project affected
persons. On the other hand, the learned A.G.P.
for the State submitted that the petitioner had
applied from NT(D) project affected persons and
ex-serviceman categories as per the recitals in
the original Application Form of the petitioner.
9. Therefore, initially we have carefully
gone through the Application Form of the
petitioner, made available for our perusal. After
going through the Application Form, it emerges
that the petitioner tick marked in Column No.5 for
ex-serviceman. He also tick marked in Column No.6
as project affected person as well as in column
No.8 for NT(D) category. Thus, obviously from the
Application Form of the petitioner submitted to
the respondents, it emerges that the petitioner
(7) Writ Petition No. 4455/2006
applied from NT(D) project affected person and
NT(D) ex-serviceman categories. This Application
Form falsifies the contention of the petitioner
that he never applied from the ex-serviceman
category.
10. From the reply submitted by the
respondents and additional information submitted
by the learned A.G.P., it becomes clear that as
the petitioner had applied from the NT(D) ex-
serviceman category, he was initially selected
from the category of NT(D) ex-serviceman though he
secured only 38.63 marks in the Screening Test.
However, at the time of verification of document,
when the petitioner could not produce the ex-
serviceman certificate, which he never possessed,
his selection from the NT(D) ex-serviceman
category was rightly cancelled by the respondents.
11. Undisputedly, the petitioner did not
possess a certificate of ex-serviceman as he was
never a serviceman. Therefore, the petitioner
could not be considered as a candidate for NT(D)
ex-serviceman category.
(8) Writ Petition No. 4455/2006
12. The next contention of the learned
Counsel for the petitioner is that 5% posts out of
402 posts were reserved for the project affected
persons, and therefore, from that category the
petitioner ought to have been selected.
13. However, the learned A.G.P. has drawn our
attention towards the Government Resolution dated
09.08.1995 which indicates that out of 5%
reservation for the project affected persons, a
slot of 3% was reserved for earthquake affected
persons and only a slot of 2% was reserved for the
project affected persons.
14. After going the the advertisement dated
25.02.2004, it emerges that for the Nagpur Region,
402 posts were advertised and out of these posts,
24 posts were reserved for NT(D) category, for
which the petitioner had applied. If these 24
posts reserved for NT(D) category are sub-divided
in accordance with horizontal social reservation,
the exact posts reserved for the various
categories are shown in the chart given as
under :-
(9) Writ Petition No. 4455/2006
Wanjari NT(D) Category.
Total Female Male Earthquake Project Ex-
affected affected serviceman
Posts (30%)
persons persons (15%)
(3%) (2%)
15. Thus, if the percentage of horizontal
reservation and 24 posts reserved for NT(D)
category are considered together with the
Government Resolution dated 09.08.1995, then it
becomes crystal clear that no post can be carved
out as reserved for the project affected category.
Thus, obviously the petitioner cannot claim
reservation as 'project affected NT(D) candidate'
out of 24 posts reserved for the entire NT(D)
candidates.
16. The petitioner being a male cannot be
considered for the 7 posts reserved for female
NT(D) candidates. For NT(D) male candidates who
are neither earthquake affected nor project
affected persons, only 12 posts are available. In
the merit list of NT(D) category of male
candidates, the petitioner is far below and the
last candidate selected from NT(D) male category
(10) Writ Petition No. 4455/2006
secured 66.50% marks in the written test.
Therefore, obviously the petitioner cannot be
appointed even from NT(D) male category. The
candidate who is selected from the earthquake
affected category had secured 54.63% marks.
Therefore, even otherwise the petitioner cannot
compete with the candidates selected from the
earthquake affected category.
17. In the result, we have no hesitation to
hold that, even after considering the claim of the
petitioner from every angle, he cannot be selected
for the post of 'Krushi Sevak' as he could not
cross over the benchmark prescribed for such
selection. While rejecting the Original
Application No. 1007/2004 the learned Tribunal has
already considered all the above discussed
aspects. Therefore, we do not find any perversity
in the order passed by the learned Tribunal which
calls for no interference.
18. As the selection letter was issued to the
petitioner on the basis of the provisional list of
selection, which was subject to verification of
(11) Writ Petition No. 4455/2006
the documents, the petitioner cannot take the
benefit of that selection letter. Respondent No.2
has already given an explanation that reference of
"project affected candidate" in a letter dated
21.08.2004 was an inadvertent mistake. Petitioner
cannot claim on the basis of this letter that he
was selected from the category of project affected
person, when no slot was available for project
affected person out of 24 NT(D) candidates. Even
the allegations regarding demand of bribe, being
baseless, deserves to be ignored.
19. In view of above said observation, we
hold that this Petition being devoid of merit,
deserves to be dismissed.
20. Accordingly, we pass the following order.
ORDER
a) Writ Petition No.4455/2006 is
dismissed.
b) Rule is discharged.
c) No order as to costs.
(SUNIL K. KOTWAL) ( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE)
JUDGE JUDGE
vdd/
