Bombay High Court
Paru Baburao Rathod vs The State Of Mah. & Ors on 21 June, 2017
Bench: T.V. Nalawade
WP No. 6795/04
1
IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 6795 OF 2004
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 233 OF 2006
Miss. Paru D/o Baburao Rathod,
Age: 29 Years, Occu: Nil,
R/o. Kaudgaon Tanda, Tirthpuri Road,
Ambad. C/o. B.H. Rathod, M.S.E.B.
Officer, Ambad, Dist. Jalna. ....Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary
General Administration Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. Director of Education,
Higher Secondary School,
Maharashtra State,Pune.
3. Dy. Director of Education,
Aurangabad Region,
Near Bansilal Nagar &
Deogiri College, Station Road,
Aurangadab.
4. President,
Grievance Committee for
Entertaining Complaints of
Shikshan Sevak, Mumbai.
5. Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Jalna.
6. District Social Welfare Officer,
Jalna, Dist. Jalna.
7. Employment Exchange Officer,
Jalna, Dist. Jalna.
8. President, Shri. Sampat Bhagaji More,
::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/06/2017 00:56:51 :::
WP No. 6795/04
2
Golapangri, Shikshan Prasarak Mandal,
Golapangri, Tq. & Dist. Jalna.
9. Head Master,
Pandurang Baburao Bagal,
Nehru Vidyalaya, Golapangri,
Tq. & Dist. Jalna.
10. Secretary
Shikshan Prasarak Mandal,
Golapangri, Tq. & Dist. Jalna.
11. Radhaji S/o Murlidhar Thakare,
Age: 30 years, Occu: Service,
R/o. Deolganonraja, Dist. Buldhana
C/o. Nehru Vidyalaya, Golapangri,
Dist. Jalna.
12. Shri. Shewale,
Dy. Education Officer ( Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Jalna. ....Respondents
Mr. N.R. Solunke, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. S.B. Pulkundwar, AGP for Respondents/State.
Mr. Vivek Dhage, Advocate for Respondent Nos.8 to 10.
Mr. V.R. Sonwalkar Advocate for Respondent No.12.
CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE AND
SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.
DATED : June 21, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT : [PER T.V. NALAWADE, J.]
. The petition is filed for setting aside the appointment of
respondent No. 11 as Assistant Teacher in Secondary School of
respondent Nos. 8, 9 and 10 and for giving further directions to
them to issue appointment order in favour of the petitioner on the
post of Assistant Teacher. Both the sides are heard.
WP No. 6795/04
2. One post of Assistant Teacher was advertised by
respondent school after getting permission from Education Officer
(Secondary). There was a backlog of V.J. (A), N.T. (B) and O.B.C.
candidates and so, in the advertisement, it was made clear that if
the proper candidate of these categories was available, the post will
be given to that candidate. Along with advertisement published in
newspaper, attempt was made to call the candidates, who had
registered with employment exchange. The name of the present
petitioner was supplied by employment exchange. The petitioner
belongs to V.J.(A) category, caste Lamani and it is her case that due
to her caste, she was entitled to get the post. It is her further
contention that she being a lady, the Government policy of
reservation for ladies ought to have been followed and priority ought
to have been given to her to give the appointment. The appointment
was given by the Selection Committee to respondent No. 11. The
petitioner had raised grievance before the President of Grievance
Committee for entertaining complaints of Shikshan Sevak, Mumbai.
The appeal of the petitioner was dismissed and so, she came to this
Court by filing present proceeding.
3. During arguments, it was submitted by the learned
counsel for petitioner that there was favouritism and respondent No.
11 was relative of respondent No. 2, Deputy Education Officer
WP No. 6795/04
(Secondary), Zilla Parishad and so, manipulation was done and
respondent No. 11 was given the appointment. Some record like
affidavit of a person who is residing at the place of respondent No.
11 is filed in support of this contention.
4. The State Government has not supported the
contentions made by the petitioner and from reply affidavit, it can be
said that necessary procedure was followed.
5. The record is produced to show that prior to making of
appointment, reservation and roster were taken into consideration
and accordingly, permission of the Education Officer was obtained for
publishing the posts. In the advertisement, it was made clear that
there was backlog of V.J. candidates and also O.B.C. candidates and
those posts were to be filled. Admittedly, respondent No. 11 belongs
to O.B.C. category. The record is produced to show that there were
three vacancies of O.B.C. candidates and there were two vacancies
of V.J. candidates. Not only the candidates supplied by employment
exchange, but the candidates who had come to face the interview in
response to the advertisement were interviewed. Sixteen candidates
had appeared. The manner of assessment was fixed and the marks
which were secured in degree course were considered. As per the
record, respondent No. 11 had secured more marks in the academic
WP No. 6795/04
courses and he performed well in interview also. Thus, the overall
marks of respondent No. 11 were more than that of the petitioner.
6. There was only one post published and for that
permission of Education Officer was obtained. It was as per the
reservation policy and the roster. The petitioner participated in the
recruitment process and she has not challenged the advertisement.
In view of these circumstances, it is not possible to infer that some
manipulation was done and due to that, respondent No. 11 came to
be selected for the post. Only on the basis of affidavit of one man
that respondent No. 11 was probably relative of Deputy Education
Officer, inference is not possible that he was favoured. Further, the
affidavit is filed by Education Officer and the Government has denied
the aforesaid allegations. In view of these circumstances, this Court
holds that it is not possible to interfere in the matter and give the
relief which is claimed by the petitioner. In the result, the petition
stands dismissed. Civil application is disposed of. Rule stands
discharged.
[SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.] [T.V. NALAWADE, J.]
ssc/
