Bombay High Court
Gurudas Baliram Dighore vs State Of Maharashtra & 2 Ors on 31 May, 2017
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
1 wp3068.02
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.3068/2002
Gurudas Baliram Dighore,
aged 31 Yrs., Occu. Educated Unemployed,
R/o Bhawad, Tahsil Paoni,
District Bhandara. ..Petitioner.
..Vs..
1. State of Maharashtra,
through Secretary to the Govt. of
Maharashtra in the Department of
Revenue, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032.
2. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bhandara,
District Bhandara.
3. Shri Bhagwat Changoji Mahure,
aged 40 Yrs., R/o Bhawad,
Tahsil Paoni, District Bhandara. ..Respondents.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
None for the petitioner.
Ms. Tajwar Khan, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
None for the respondent No.3.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND Z.A.HAQ JJ.
DATED : 31.05.2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.)
1. None for the petitioner or respondent No.3.
2. Learned A.G.P. has appeared for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
2 wp3068.02
3. By order dated 2nd December, 1999 respondent No.3 has been
selected and appointed as Police Patil as he has secured more marks than
petitioner. Petitioner appeared in selection process along with said respondent
and 6 other candidates. It is not in dispute that respondent No.3 has secured
more marks than him.
4. Petitioner placed reliance upon last clause in proclamation dated
18.2.1999 and urged that as qualified candidate belong to V.J.N.T. was
available, that candidate namely petitioner should have been given preference.
5. Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal has considered this challenge.
6. In its judgment dated 13.6.2002 in O.A. No.708/1999 it has found
that petitioner secured 45 marks while selected respondent No.3 secured 55
marks. In paragraph 6 it has been commented upon stipulation in
advertisement and importance of the post of Police Patil.
7. Learned A.G.P. has fairly invited our attention to the order dated
5.9.2003 admitting present writ petition. This Court has found that correctness
of observations in paragraph 6 of the impugned order of Maharashtra
Administration Tribunal needed scrutiny by this Court.
3 wp3068.02
8. We find that proclamation nowhere specifically stipulates any
reservation for the post of Police Patil of Mouja Bhawad. The last clause only
points out a preference. The question of giving preference will arise if two
candidates are similarly situated. We have also considered whether last clause
can be read as a provision giving primacy or precedence. The proclamation
nowhere stipulates reservation. If reservation is to be stipulated a roster is
required to be drawn and then a roster point needs to be earmarked.
Apparently post of Police Patil is an isolated post.
9. In this situation, we do not find anything wrong with the
application of mind by Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. There is no
jurisdictional error or perversity. Rule is accordingly discharged. No costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Tambaskar.
