Shri. Firoj Tayyabji Shaikh vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 7521 Bom

                                                                               2. civil wp 13627-16.doc


RMA      
                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                WRIT PETITION NO. 13627 OF 2016


            Firoj Tayyabji Shaikh                                        .. Petitioner

                                 Versus
            State of Maharashtra & Ors.                                  .. Respondents

                                                  ...................
            Appearances
            Mr. Veerdhawal Deshmukh i/by
            Mr. V.S. Kapse               Advocate for the Petitioner
            Mr. N.C. Walimbe             AGP for the Respondents / State
                                                  ...................



                              CORAM       : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI &
                                              DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, JJ.

DATE : SEPTEMBER 25, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT [PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

AGP for the State / Respondents.

2. Rule. By consent of the parties, rule is made returnable

forthwith and the matter is heard finally.

            jfoanz vkacsjdj                                                                   1 of 8





                                                        2. civil wp 13627-16.doc

3. The petitioner had applied for the post of Police Sub-

Inspector from the OBC sports category. His application was

rejected, hence, he preferred Original Application i.e O.A. No.

843 of 2015 before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal,

Mumbai. The said O.A. came to be dismissed, hence, this

petition.

4. The petitioner had applied for the post of PSI from the

OBC sports category. The case of the petitioner is that he

had cleared the various tests and he fulfilled all the

requirements of the said post, yet he was not selected, which

was an erroneous decision.

5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the

petitioner in his on-line application had filled the sport of 'Tug

of War' in which he stood 3rd and had got bronze medal,

hence, he was eligible. It is the case of the respondents that

in order to be eligible from the OBC Sports category, the

candidate should have participated in sport at the State level

jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 8

2. civil wp 13627-16.doc

competition and it should also be in accordance with the

relevant G.R. of 2005. Both the sides have placed reliance

on the G.R. dated 30.4.2005. In the said G.R., eligibility

regarding sports category has been set out. Admittedly the

concerned clause in the present case is clause 4(c). This

clause states that the candidate should have appeared

individually or in a team sport in which he should have stood

1st, 2nd or 3rd or obtained Gold, Silver or Bronze medal at

State Level Competition. It is further stated in the said

clause that the State Competitions should have been

conducted by the Maharashtra Olympic Association or by an

authorized State Association which is affiliated to the

Maharashtra Olympic Association.

6. It is the case of the respondents that in the on-line

application, the petitioner had only filled in the sport of

Karate and the same did not fall within the G.R. dated

30.4.2005. Even according to the petitioner, his participation

in 'karate' is not covered by G.R. of 2005. However,

jfoanz vkacsjdj 3 of 8

2. civil wp 13627-16.doc

according to the petitioner, he has also qualified in the sport

of 'Tug of War' in which he had obtained 3rd place or bronze

medal which is covered by G.R. of 2005. It is stated that he

produced the said certificate at the time of interview and

hence, it ought to have been considered. It is his further

case that he mentioned this sport also in his on-line

application. However, according to the respondents, in the

on-line application, the petitioner had not mentioned the

sport of 'Tug of War'.

7. Thus, the crux of the matter is as to whether the

petitioner had applied for the post of PSI stating the sport of

'Tug of War' in his on-line application. As far as Karate is

concerned, there is no dispute that it was not something that

could be a plus point in the case of the petitioner. Learned

counsel for the petitioner showed us the copy of on-line

application where in the category of sports, both Karate as

well as 'Tug of War' have been mentioned. However, the

similar document i.e on-line application of the petitioner has

jfoanz vkacsjdj 4 of 8

2. civil wp 13627-16.doc

been annexed to the affidavit of Shri. Deepak Urade, Under

Secretary in the office of respondent No. 2 - Maharashtra

Public Service Commission which shows that the petitioner

has not mentioned the sport of 'Tug of War' in the on-line

application.

8. It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that unless the

petitioner had mentioned both the sports, he would not have

been allowed to go upto the stage of production of

documents for verification and that is the vindication of the

stand of the petitioner. It is not possible for us to accept the

submission made on behalf of the petitioner. Various

documents on behalf of the MPSC as well as the contents of

the affidavits filed before the Tribunal and before us show

that while submitting the applications, the documents are

not required to be filed. They are only required to be

submitted at the time of verification thereof which is at the

time of interview and by this time, various tests have already

been cleared.

jfoanz vkacsjdj                                                        5 of 8





                                                      2. civil wp 13627-16.doc

9. We are thus faced with some kind of word against word

scenario. It is the categorical case of the petitioner that he

has stated the sport of 'Tug of War' in his on-line application

whereas it is the categorical case of respondent - MPSC that

the petitioner had not stated the sport of 'Tug of War' in his

on-line application. In such case, we find it necessary to refer

to some documents. One of the documents is the Original

Application filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal. In

paragraph 9 of page 9 of the Original Application, the

applicant has clearly mentioned that in the relevant column

of the on-line application form, he had mentioned the sport

of Karate only because of the fact that he obtained Gold

medal i.e 1st place in the said sport. Thereafter, in

paragraph 14 of the Original Application, he has stated that

his candidature was rejected only on the ground that he had

not submitted the sport certificate of 'Tug of War'. We

reproduce the relevant portion from paragraph 14 of the

Original Application which reads as under:-

jfoanz vkacsjdj                                                     6 of 8





                                                                           2. civil wp 13627-16.doc

"...................The Applicant states that said reason is ex-facie illegal as well as factually incorrect. It is true fact as well as firm contention of the Applicant that on 19.01.2012 (date of interview) the Applicant has submitted his sport certificate of 'Tug of War' sport along with other sport certificates. However, the Respondent No. 2 deliberately neglected the said certificate by taking disadvantage of the fact that in the relevant column of on-line application form, the Applicant mentioned his game as 'Karate'. The Applicant states that only because of the said fact, the candidature of the Applicant cannot be rejected."

[Emphasis supplied]

10. Again in paragraph 19 of the Original Application, it is

mentioned that though the applicant (petitioner) mentioned

the name of one game i.e Karate in the application form, his

certificate of 'Tug of War' was required to be considered for

his selection for sports quota. Thus, the petitioner's own

statement made in the original application supports the case

of the respondent - MPSC that in the on-line application form,

the petitioner did not mention the sport of 'Tug of War'. We

would also like to add that from Exh. B to the affidavit-in-

rejoinder, it would appear that on 7.5.2015, the petitioner

had lost the original copy of the on-line application form

along with some other documents for which he made a

police complaint. If that was so, it is not possible to

jfoanz vkacsjdj 7 of 8

2. civil wp 13627-16.doc

comprehend as to how the petitioner could still get the copy

of the on-line application form which he submitted before the

Tribunal as well as before us. As stated earlier, there is

nothing on record to reach the conclusion that respondent -

MPSC would play such tricks and games as is alleged by the

petitioner. As stated earlier, the petitioner himself in his

Original Application at several places has admitted that in his

on-line application form, he had filled in only the sport of

Karate. In such case, we cannot find any error in the action

of the respondents of rejecting the application of the

petitioner for the post of PSI.

9. In view of above, we find no merit in this petition. Rule

is discharged.

[ DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J ] [ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. ]

jfoanz vkacsjdj 8 of 8