Jyoti Ramsing Wasawe And Ors vs State Of Maharashtra Through Its ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 1892 Bom

                                           56 wp3677-20.odt


       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
               CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                  WRIT PETITION NO.3677 OF 2020


Jyoti Ramsing Wasawe & Ors.               .. Petitioners

vs.
The State of Maharashta & Ors.            .. Respondents

                               .....

Mr.Ravindra K. Adsure a/w Mr.Sidheshwar Biradar and Mr.Yash
Sonawane for the Petitioners

Mr.Anil Anturkar, Special Senior Counsel a/w Mr.Vaibhav
Sugdare, 'A' Panel Counsel a/w Mr.Akshay Shinde 'B' Panel
Counsel a/w Mr.Rajan S. Pawar, A.G.P. for the State

                               .....

                          CORAM: K.K.TATED &
                                  R.I.CHAGLA, JJ.

DATED : JANUARY 28, 2021 P.C.

. Heard.

2. The learned Senior Counsel for the State submits that they have already complied the order dated 13.01.2021 passed by this Court. In support of that, he has placed on record letter dated 27.01.2021 addressed to the Petitioner. In the said letter, the reason given by them for not appointing the Petitioner member is as under:

"a) Application fled in the Hon'ble Supreme Court by the State Government bearing No.94699

Mohite 1/3 56 wp3677-20.odt

of 2020 for vacating interim order dated 9/9/2020 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is pending consideration before the Hon'ble Constitution Bench. The said application will be listed before the Hon'ble Constitution Bench on 05/02/2021.

b) Applications are fled by the candidates belonging to SEBC category who have been selected in the aforesaid section process, which applications are also pending consideration before the Hon'ble Constitution Bench.

c) Most importantly, it needs to be appreciated that ultimately if the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismisses the Appeal fled challenging the Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court upholding the SEBC Act, 2018 and at this stage if the State Government accedes to the request made by your clients, in that case, the State Government will be faced with the issue of inter-se seniority amongst the Non- SEBC and SEBC candidates. Conversely, if the said Appeals are allowed, the candidates who are selected from the SEBC category thereafter will have to be considered from the open category, which will require the MPSC to reshuffe the entire select list, as per the vacancies from the different cadres. Again, in that case, issue of inter-se seniority will be raised. In such situation if the State issues appointment orders to the Non-SEBC candidates at this stage, the same will complicate the entire selection process.

d) Even otherwise, as aforesaid, it is settled position of law that a person selected by Service Selection Board for direct appointment to a particular post does not have an unfettered right to be appointed on the basis of the recommendation made by the Board."

Mohite                                                       2/3
                                             56 wp3677-20.odt

3. When this Court decided to take action against the Respondents, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondent State submits that they require some time so that Respondent no.1 Chief Secretary can fle affdavit explaining the matter in the present case.

4. His request is accepted. Hence, the following order is passed:

a. Respondent no.1 Chief Secretary to fle their Affdavit in Reply on or before 03.02.2021 with copy to other side.

b. Matter to appear on board on 05.02.2021.

(R.I.CHAGLA, J.)                          (K.K.TATED, J.)




Mohite                                                         3/3