Arjun Maruti Gore vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 7337 Bom

                                    (1)                            902 wp 5025.16



           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD


                       WRIT PETITION NO. 5025 OF 2016


      Arjun s/o Maruti Gore,
      Age : 45 years, Occ. Service as
      Deputy Director (Sericulture), Nagpur
      R/o C/o. Director (Sericulture)
      Maharashtra State, New Administrative
      Building No.2, 6th Floor, B-Wing,
      Civil Lines, Nagpur.                             ..       Petitioner

                       Versus

1.    The State of Maharashtra,
      Through its Principal Secretary,
      Textile Department, M.S.
      Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.

2.    The Maharashtra Public Service
      Commission, 5,6,7,8 Floor,
      Kuparej Telephone Bhavan Building,
      Maharshi Karve Marg,
      Mumbai - 21.

3.    Dilip s/o Ashruji Hake,
      Age : 51 years, Occu: Service,
      R/o Plot No. 7/10, Saptashrungi,
      Housing Society, N-7, Cidco,
      Aurangabad, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad.              ..       Respondents

                                   ----
Mr. Vivek J. Dhage., Advocate for the petitioner.
Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, AGP for respondent-State.
Mr. Avinash Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent no. 3.
                                    ---




     ::: Uploaded on - 26/09/2017             ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2017 00:55:52 :::
                                         (2)                              902 wp 5025.16

                                    CORAM :     S.V. GANGAPURWALA &
                                                MANGESH S. PATIL, JJ.

DATE : 20.09.2017

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S.V. Gangapurwala, J.):-

. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of

parties taken up for final hearing.

2. The respondent no.3 had assailed the selection of petitioner

herein before the Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the original application

thereby set aside the appointment of the present petitioner and directed

the respondent nos. 1 and 2 to appoint the present respondent no.3 on

the post of Deputy Director (Sericulture), aggrieved thereby the present

petition.

3. Mr. Dhage, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that

the Tribunal has gone beyond the prayer made by the present

respondent no.3 in the original application. The respondent nos. 1 and 2

did not have any occasion to verify the documents of the present

respondent no.3, in as much as the respondent no.3 was never selected

and as such could not have directed appointment of respondent no.3 in

place of present petitioner. According to the learned counsel, the

petitioner possesses the necessary qualification and the experience as

(3) 902 wp 5025.16

per the advertisement for the post of Deputy Director (Sericulture). The

necessary administrative experience is also possessed. The Tribunal

solely on the ground that experience certificates are not issued by the

competent authority has disbelieved them, the same is the position with

regard to the certificates of respondent no.3, however, they are

considered.

4. The learned counsel submits that M.P.S.C. after verifying all

the documents produced before it had recommended the name of

present petitioner and the present petitioner has been duly appointed

and is holding the said post since the year 2013.

5. Mr. Deshmukh, the learned counsel for respondent no.3

submits that the documents produced by the present petitioner were not

issued by the competent authority, moreover, the petitioner did not

possess experience as required for the said post and as per the

advertisement, more particularly the administrative experience. The

Tribunal has rightly considered the said certificates. The experience

possessed by the present petitioner was technical in nature, which

cannot be said to be experience on the administrative side. The Tribunal

has also considered the experience certificates produced by the present

respondent no.3 and thereafter has passed the order.

(4) 902 wp 5025.16

6. Mrs. Gondhalekar, the learned A.G.P. submits that the present

respondent nos. 1 and 2 had filed their affidavit before the Tribunal

substantiating their stand.

7. We have considered the submissions. With regard to the

experience possessed by the candidates, the expert body entrusted with

the selection process is supposed to scan the documents, apply their

mind and take decision thereupon. Objections are raised to the

documents produced by the present petitioner to the effect that the

experience certificates on record and filed by the present petitioner do

not with-stand the test of administrative experience and that the same is

technical in nature and / or that the same is not issued by the competent

authority. It does not appear that the State had any objection with

regard to the authority who has issued the experience certificate.

Moreover, certain objections are raised with regard to the nature of the

experience which certainly the M.P.S.C. or the competent authority will

have to consider in the touchstone of the objections raised and discussed

by the Tribunal.

8. The Tribunal or this Court is not an expert to consider the

nature of the experience, the same naturally has to be considered by the

committee of experts appointed for the said purpose during the

(5) 902 wp 5025.16

recruitment process.

9. It also appears that the documents pertaining to experience

produced before by the respondent no.3 were also not verified by

M.P.S.C. In view of the fact that the respondent no.3 was never selected

and was kept in the wait list, the same also will have to be considered by

the authority. Naturally, without considering the documents, the Tribunal

could not have passed an order directing appointment of respondent

no.3, the same would be beyond the purview of the jurisdiction of the

Tribunal.

10. Considering the above, the impugned judgment and order is

quashed and set aside.

11. The M.P.S.C. or any such authority competent to verify the

documents on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2 shall verify the

documents of the petitioner and the respondent no.3 herein and take

decision afresh with regard to the selection for the post of Deputy

Director (Sericulture) as per the advertisement in question. The said

decision be taken expeditiously and preferably within two months.

12. In case the respondent nos. 1 and 2 choose to cancel the

selection of the present petitioner, then, the said order shall not take

(6) 902 wp 5025.16

effect for a period of two weeks. Needles to state on lapse of two weeks

the protection granted will come to an end. If the authority so desires

they may hear the parties concerned. Writ petition is accordingly

disposed of. Rule accordingly made partly absolute. No costs.

[MANGESH S. PATIL, J.] [S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.]

mub