Shaikh Chand Pasha Shaikh Abdul vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 7342 Bom

                                           1                WP-4359.11.doc




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                         BENCH AT AURANGABAD


                      WRIT PETITION NO. 4359 OF 2011



 Shaikh Chand Pasha s/o Shaikh Abdul
 Age: 40 years, Occu. At present Nil,
 R/o Raviwar Peth (Bagadi).
 Bouddh Wada Road, Vasmat,
 Taluka: Vasmat, District : Hingoli            .. Petitioner

                  versus

 1)       The State of Maharashtra
          through its Secretary,
          Department of Civil Protection
          and Home Guard (Under the
          Department of Home Affairs),
          M. S., Mantralaya, Mumba.

 2)       The Commandant General,
          Home Guards, M.S.,
          Old Secretariat (Extension),
          M. G. Road, Mumbai.

 3)       The Senior Administrative Officer
          (Administration and policy)
          Civil Protection and Home Guard,
          M. S., O/o The Commandant General,
          Home Gurards, M.S. Old Secretariat
          (Extension), M.G. Road, Mumbai.

 4)       The District Commandant,
          Home Guards, Hingoli,
          Taluka and District : Hingoli.       .. Respondents

               -----
 Mr. Rajendrraa S. Deshmukkh, Advocate for petitioner
 Mr. S. K. Tambe, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent




::: Uploaded on - 21/09/2017                   ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2017 01:48:24 :::
                                           2                     WP-4359.11.doc



                                CORAM :       SUNIL P. DESHMUKH AND
                                              SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.

                                DATE :        20th September, 2017


 ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard learned counsel

for petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for

respondents by consent finally.

2. Petitioner purports to challenge order dated 28-12-2010

whereunder petitioner's appointment as taluka commandant of

home guards, Basmat squad has been brought to an end.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Rajendrraa Deshmukkh

has submitted that the reasons for which the petitioner has not

been selected may not have any legal basis having regard to the

provisions of the Maharashtra Home Guards Act, 1947 and rules

thereunder. He particularly refers to section 3 as well as rules 3, 8

and 9. He submits, even if the instructions are so given, those

would be in excess of the powers and bounds of the provisions.

He, therefore, submits that the impugned order dated 28-10-2010

is liable to be set aside.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for

respondents submits that although submissions as aforesaid are

advanced, it may not be ignored that the instructions so issued

3 WP-4359.11.doc

and followed for selected candidates in present case, are uniformly

applied across the Maharashtra State and there is no variation in

the same. Even the persons who were interviewed for the post of

taluka commandant, home guards, Basmat squad, a few other

candidates were not selected having regard to aforesaid

instructions and for similar reasons as were considered in respect of

the petitioner by the interviewing committee. He submits, in the

absence of challenge to those instructions, it is difficult to sustain

the challenge to impugned order as has been posed nor impugned

orders can be flawed.

5. It appears that pursuant to the selection procedure employed

for selection of taluka commandant, home guard, Basmat taluka

squad as many as fourteen candidates were called for interview and

from among them, four persons as have been referred to on page

70 of the reply had been selected. Petitioner did not figure in the

said select list for the reasons as are recorded by the interviewing

committee as are appearing on page 73 of the reply.

6. It appears that since 28-12-2010, petitioner could not

continue with the post as desired. It is not a case wherein it can be

said that petitioner is a candidate selected under procedure

employed nor such is the case of petitioner. In any case, since the

guidelines / instructions have been uniformly applied and petition

does not pose challenge to those instructions, we do not consider it

4 WP-4359.11.doc

expedient to unsettle impugned order while the petitioner had not

been selected at all. The impugned order, as such, is not liable to

be faulted with.

7. Writ petition, as such, does not carry any substance and the

same accordingly stands dismissed. Rule discharged.

 SANGITRAO S. PATIL                            SUNIL P. DESHMUKH,
      JUDGE                                         JUDGE




 pnd