Bombay High Court
Vaijnath Nivruttirao Raner vs The State Of Mah & Ors on 12 July, 2017
Bench: T.V. Nalawade
1 WP 7541 of 2004
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Writ Petition No. 7541 of 2004
* Vaijnath s/o Nivruttirao Raner,
Age 28 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o Sakhala Plot, Lohgaon Road,
Parbhani. .. Petitioner.
Versus
1) The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Secretary,
Rural and Water Conservation
Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai.
2) The Collector, Osmanabad.
3) The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad.
4) Navnath s/o Popat Kakade,
Age 28 years,
R/o Wagholi,
Taluka & District Osmanabad. .. Respondents.
----
Shri. S.P. Koli, Advocate, holding for Shri. S.T. Veer, for
petitioner.
Shri. R.V. Dasalkar, Assistant Government Pleader, for
respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Shir. K.J. Ghute Patil, Advocate for respondent No.3.
Shri. T.B. Bhosle, Advocate, for respondent No.4.
----
::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2017 00:35:05 :::
2 WP 7541 of 2004
Coram: T.V. NALAWADE &
SUNIL K. KOTWAL, JJ.
Date : 12 July 2017
JUDGMENT:
1) The petition is filed to challenge the
appointment order issued in favour of respondent No.4 on
the post of Gram Sevak on contract basis and also for
giving direction to respondent No.3 to issue appointment
order of the said post in favour of the petitioner. Both the
sides are heard.
2) The petitioner and the respondent No.4 had
participated in the process of selection of Gram Sevak
which was started after publishing advertisement on 17-1-
2003. The petitioner had applied from open category
claiming that he was "project affected person" and he was
entitled to get the post as project affected person. From
the same category respondent No.4 had made application.
Interviews were conducted and then names of the persons
as per merit were published by the committee of
respondent No.3, Zilla Parishad. It is the grievance of the
3 WP 7541 of 2004
petitioner that he is more meritorious than respondent
No.4 but appointment was given to respondent No.4.
3) It is the contention of the petitioner that as
he was B.Sc. Agri. and had secured 74.10% marks in the
said degree course, his qualification was better and
higher than the qualification of respondent No.4.
Respondent No.4 was H.S.C. and he is holding Diploma in
Agriculture. It is contention of the petitioner that due to
this circumstance preference ought to have been given to
him. This Court has carefully gone through the conditions
published in the advertisement. They show that both the
petitioner and the respondent No.4 were eligible as they
were satisfying the requirement of educational
qualification. The conditions do not show that priority
was to be given to persons holding degree. The learned
counsel for the respondent No.4 drew attention of this
Court to the policy of the Government published in
Government Circular dated 13-9-2000. In this Government
Circular the Government had given directions to the
concerned departments and the Zilla Parishads to see that
the names of the persons, who were to be selected from
4 WP 7541 of 2004
project affected person category, were to be informed to
the Collector and then the Collector was to send such of
the candidates who could have been appointed on the
basis of wait list prepared by him. Seniority in the wait
list was to be observed. In the present matter reply is filed
to the effect that the name of the petitioner was not
informed by Collector and the name of respondent No.4
was informed by the Collector and so the appointment
was given to respondent No.4. This Court sees no reason
to interfere in the said policy of the Government and in
ordinary course the person who got affected first needs to
be given priority. Due to this circumstance this Court
holds that it is not possible to interfere in the matter and
give relief claimed. In the result, the petition stands
dismissed. Rule stands discharged.
Sd/- Sd/-
(SUNIL K. KOTWAL, J.) (T.V. NALAWADE, J.)
rsl
