Bombay High Court
Archana D/O Pralhad Pande vs State Of Maharashtra Through Its ... on 27 March, 2017
Bench: V.A. Naik
2703WP5370.13-Judgment 1/3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 5370 OF 2013
PETITIONER :- Archana D/o. Pralhad Pande, Aged about 33
years, Occ. Service, R/o. Medical College
Quarters, Type-4 Block-3, Vasantrao Naik
Government Medical College Campus,
Yavatmal.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1. State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary
for General Administration Department
Mantralaya-Mumbai.
2. Chairman, District Selection Committee and
District Collector, Yavatmal District,
Yavatmal.
3. Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad,
Yavatmal.
4. President, Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. S.A.Marathe, counsel for the petitioner.
Mrs.A.R.Taiwade, Asstt.Govt.Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Mr.R.D.Bhuibhar, counsel for the respondent Nos.3 and 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK &
MRS.SWAPNA JOSHI
, JJ.
DATED : 27.03.2017
O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per Smt.Vasanti A Naik, J.)
By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the action
on the part of the respondents of filling the three posts of laboratory
2703WP5370.13-Judgment 2/3
technicians in the zilla parishad in pursuance of the advertisement
dated 23/09/2013 by appointment of scheduled tribes candidates.
2. According to the petitioner, since she belongs to the
category of physically challenged, the respondents ought to have
reserved one post of the three posts of laboratory technicians in the zilla
parishad for a physically challenged candidate. It is stated that at the
most, two posts of laboratory technicians could have been filled by
appointment of the scheduled tribes candidates but the zilla parishad
reserved all the three posts for the scheduled tribes. It is submitted that
the respondent-zilla parishad has committed an error in not granting
due weightage to the policy of reservation, specially the reservation
meant for the physically challenged.
3. Mrs.Tiwari, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for
the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Shri Bhuibhar, the learned counsel for
the respondent Nos.3 and 4, state that though this court had not
granted any interim relief in this writ petition in favour of the
petitioner, the petitioner has not joined the candidates that are
appointed on the posts of laboratory technicians in pursuance of the
selection process conducted in the year 2013. It is stated that in the
year 2014, again some posts of laboratory technicians were advertised
and the petitioner applied in pursuance of the said advertisement but
was not successful in securing the employment, as she was not selected.
2703WP5370.13-Judgment 3/3
It is stated that in the aforesaid set of facts, the writ petition is liable to
be dismissed.
4. We are not inclined to grant the relief sought by the
petitioner in the instant petition. Since we had not granted any interim
relief in favour of the petitioner, all the posts that were advertised in the
year 2013 were filled up by the selected candidates. The petitioner has
not joined any of the candidates that were appointed on the posts of
laboratory technicians in pursuance of the advertisement of the year
2013. It was necessary for the petitioner to have joined the appointed
candidates as party respondents, as they would be seriously affected if
we consider granting the relief in favour of the petitioner. Also, the
petitioner had applied in pursuance of an advertisement issued by the
zilla parishad in the year 2014, but since the petitioner did not achieve
the benchmark, the petitioner's candidature was rejected. In this view of
the matter, no relief could be granted in favour of the petitioner.
In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition stands dismissed
with no order as to costs. Rule stands discharged.
JUDGE JUDGE
KHUNTE
