Bombay High Court
Pawan S/O Mukundrao Mhaske vs The Collector And President, ... on 29 March, 2017
Bench: V.A. Naik
2903WP3621.13-Judgment 1/6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 3621 OF 2013
PETITIONER :- Pawan s/o Mukundrao Mhaske, Aged about
27 years, Occ.:Unemployed, R/o. At & Post:
Murmadi, Tq. Lakhni, Dist. Bhandara.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1) The Collector and President, District
Selection Committee, Bhandara.
2) Chief Executive Officer and Member, District
Selection Committee, Bhandara.
3) Executive Engineer (PWD) and Member-
Secretary, District Selection Committee,
Bhandara.
4) Shri Prateek Shivkumar Shahare, Aged
about Adult, Occ : Arekhak, Zilla Parishad,
Bhandara.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr.L.H.Kothari, counsel for the petitioner.
Ms N. P. Mehta, Asstt.Govt.Pleader for the respondent No.1
Mr. R.S.Khobragade, counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3.
Mr. V. D. Raut, counsel for the respondent No.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK &
MRS.SWAPNA JOSHI
, JJ.
DATED : 29.03.2017
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 selection
list published by the District Selection Committee, Zilla Parishad,
2903WP3621.13-Judgment 2/6
Bhandara. The petitioner has sought a direction against the respondent
Nos.1 to 3 to appoint the petitioner on the post of arekhak/draftsman as
the petitioner has secured the highest marks.
2. Zilla Parishad Bhandara published an advertisement on
28/05/2013 inviting applications from candidates desirous of seeking
appointment on the posts mentioned in the advertisement, that
included the post of a draftsman/arekhak. The petitioner applied in
pursuance of the advertisement along with several others. The District
Selection Committee conducted the written examination and the list of
meritorious candidates was declared. The petitioner secured the
highest marks in the written examination, i.e. 127.5 marks. The
petitioner's documents were verified on 24/06/2013 and according to
the District Selection Committee, the petitioner did not possess the
requisite qualifications for appointment on the post of draftsman/
arekhak. According to the advertisement, a candidate possessing two
years diploma in civil mechanical or electrical engineering from a
government recognised institution or equivalent qualification was
required to be possessed. According to the petitioner, the petitioner
possessed the equivalent qualification as the petitioner had passed the
higher secondary school certificate examination in M.C.V.C. course.
Since the candidature of the petitioner was rejected by the District
2903WP3621.13-Judgment 3/6
Selection Committee and the respondent No.4, the candidate, who was
placed at Sr.No.2 in the merit list was appointed, the petitioner has filed
the instant petition seeking a direction against the District Selection
Committee to appoint the petitioner in the post of arekhak/draftsman.
3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the
respondent Nos.1 to 3 had prescribed that the candidate should have
possessed the secondary school certificate with two years diploma in
civil mechanical or electrical engineering from a government recognised
institute or an equivalent qualification. It is stated that since the
petitioner has passed the higher secondary school certificate
examination with M.C.V.C. course, the petitioner possesses the
equivalent qualification. According to the petitioner, since the petitioner
possesses the equivalent qualification, he is required to be selected for
the post of arekhak/draftsman as he has admittedly secured the highest
marks. It is stated that two years diploma of the industrial training
institute is equivalent to the two years certificate course in M.C.V.C. It
is stated that the examination in the industrial training institute
diploma course is conducted by the board of industrial training institute
whereas the examination in M.C.V.C. course is conducted by the
Maharashtra State Higher Secondary Board of Education. According to
the petitioner, since the qualification possessed by the petitioner is
2903WP3621.13-Judgment 4/6
equivalent to the qualification prescribed in the advertisement, the
respondent Nos.1 to 3 were obliged to select the petitioner for the post
of arekhak.
4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for
the respondent Nos.1 and 2 has seriously opposed the prayers made in
the petition. It is submitted that the petitioner does not possess the
qualification that is equivalent to the qualification of two years diploma
in mechanical or electrical engineering from a recognised institution in
the State of Maharashtra. It is submitted that the petitioner has passed
the higher secondary school certificate examination with M.C.V.C.
course. It is stated that the diploma examination is conducted by the
industrial training institute recognised by the government whereas the
higher secondary school certificate examination with the M.C.V.C.
course is conducted by the Maharashtra State Higher Secondary Board
of Education. It is submitted that since the respondent No.4 was placed
at Sr.No.2 in the merit list and the petitioner was ineligible, the
respondent No.4 was rightly selected and appointed on the post of
arekhak. The learned Assistant Government Pleader sought for the
dismissal of the writ petition.
2903WP3621.13-Judgment 5/6
5. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears
that the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted. The
advertisement clearly stipulates that for the post of arekhak, the
candidate should have passed the secondary school certificate
examination and should possess two years diploma in mechanical or
electrical engineering from the institute recognised by the State of
Maharashtra or should possess an equivalent qualification. The
petitioner has only passed the higher secondary school certificate
examination with M.C.V.C. course. What is sought by the advertisement
is two years diploma in mechanical or electrical engineering or an
equivalent qualification. The petitioner has not placed any material on
record to show that equivalence is granted either by the State
Government or by any competent authority to the two courses i.e. the
diploma in mechanical or electrical engineering and the M.C.V.C.
course. All the respondents have seriously disputed the claim of the
petitioner in respect of equivalence. It would not be proper for this
court in exercise of the writ jurisdiction to hold that one course is
equivalent to another, when the authority competent to hold so, has
not declared as such. The government resolution dated 12/08/2010 on
which the petitioner has placed reliance does not refer to the subjects in
which the petitioner has passed the M.C.V.C.course. Since the petitioner
did not possess the requisite qualification, we do not find that the
2903WP3621.13-Judgment 6/6
respondent No.2 has committed any error in refusing to select the
petitioner for appointment to the post of arekhak. Further, we find that
though the petitioner has joined the respondent No.4 as a party to the
writ petition, the petitioner has not amended the prayer clause
accordingly, challenging the appointment of the respondent No.4 to the
post of arekhak. It appears that the respondent No.4 must be working
on the post of arekhak for more than three years.
In this view of the matter, we dismiss the writ petition
with no order as to costs. Rule stands discharged.
JUDGE JUDGE
KHUNTE
