Sau. Manisha Shrikrishna Solanke vs State Of Maharashtra, Through Its ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 3849 Bom

                                                                                        wp1218.15.odt

                                                      1

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

                                 WRIT PETITION NO.1218/2015

     PETITIONER :               Sau. Manisha Shrikrishna Solanke, 
                                Age 36 years, Occ : Agriculturist, 
                                R/o Waghoda, Tq. Nandgaon Khandeshwar, 
                                District : Amravati. 

                                                ...Versus...

     RESPONDENTS : 1.  State of Maharashtra, 
                              Through its Secretary,
                              Department of Home, Mantralaya,
                              Mumbai. 

                                2.  Collector, Amravati. 

                                3.  Sub Divisional Officer, Amravati.

                                  4.  Madhukar Pandurangji Mandavghare, 
                                       Age 46 years, Occ : Business, R/o Waghoda, 
                                      Tq. Nandgaon Khandeshwar, District : Amravati. 

     --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Ms Dipali Sapkal, Advocate for petitioner 
                       Shri H.R. Dhumale, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 3
                       Shri M.I. Dhatrak, Advocate for respondent no.4
     --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                    CORAM  :  SMT. VASANTI  A  NAIK AND
                                                                      ARUN D. UPADHYE, JJ.

DATE : 01.07.2017

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

By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the

Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, dated 28.11.2014 dismissing the

original application filed by the petitioner.

wp1218.15.odt

The petitioner and the respondent no.4 applied for

appointment to the post of Police Patil of village Waghoda as per the

proclamation issued by the respondent no.3 on 17.1.2009. As per the

norms for selection four marks could be allotted to a candidate holding a

graduate degree and three additional marks for the candidate holding a

post graduate degree. The petitioner was admittedly not a graduate at the

time of the selection but wrongly four marks were allotted to the

petitioner and she was appointed to the post of Police Patil of village

Waghoda. Some complaints were received by the respondent nos.2 and 3

in respect of the wrongful appointment of the petitioner and on an

enquiry, the respondent no.3 issued a notice to the petitioner asking her

to show cause as to why her appointment should not be cancelled as she

was wrongfully awarded four marks though she did not possess a degree.

After receiving the explanation from the petitioner, the appointment

order issued in favour of the petitioner was cancelled and the respondent

no.4 was appointed to the post of Police Patil. Cancellation of her

appointment and the appointment of the respondent no.4 was challenged

by the petitioner before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. The

Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dismissed the original application

filed by the petitioner.

wp1218.15.odt

Ms Sapkal, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted

that the Tribunal was not justified in dismissing the original application

filed by the petitioner. It is submitted that though the petitioner was

wrongfully awarded four additional marks for a degree which she did not

posses, the respondent no.4 was also wrongfully awarded two marks for

the B.P.Ed. degree though the B.P.Ed. degree is not a post graduate

degree. It is submitted that the petitioner has received 17 marks after the

deduction of four marks and if the marks of the respondent no.4 are

reduced the petitioner would be entitled to be appointed.

On the other hand, it is submitted on behalf of the

respondents that the Tribunal has rightly considered the Government

Resolution placed by the parties on record to hold that the claim of the

petitioner was not justified. It is submitted that even if the submission

made on behalf of the petitioner is accepted and two marks are used from

the marks secured by the respondent no.4 still the respondent no.4 would

secure 17 marks that would be equal to the marks secured by the

petitioner. It is submitted that the respondent no.4 was appointed nearly

seven years earlier and in the circumstances of the case, the petition is

liable to be dismissed.

We find much force in the submission made on behalf of the

respondents. Even if we assume that the respondent no.4 was not entitled

wp1218.15.odt

to two marks for possessing a B.P.Ed. degree, still the marks secured by

the respondent no.4 would be 17 marks. Considering the fact that the

respondent no.4 was appointed nearly seven years back, it would not be

proper for this Court to interfere with the appointment order of the

respondent no.4, specially when the respondent no.4 is working as a

Police Patil for long and there appears to be no grievance against her.

While so observing, we are not inclined to accept the submission made on

behalf of the petitioner that the appointment order of the respondent no.4

should be set aside as the petitioner has secured more marks than the

respondent no.4 under the head "suitability of the candidate". Much

weightage cannot be given to this aspect of the matter, specially when the

respondent no.4 is working on the post of Police Patil for nearly seven

years.

In the circumstances of the case, we dispose of the writ

petition with no order as to costs. Rule stands discharged.

                 JUDGE                                                                JUDGE




     Wadkar