Sunanda D/O Purushottam ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 14381 Bom

                                                               8.wp3852.2021..odt
                                             1/4



              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

                         WRIT PETITION NO. 3852 OF 2021
  Ku. Sunanda d/o Purushottam Khobragade
  (Now Sunanda w/o Punjabrao Shende)
  Aged about 41 years, Occ. Nil,
  R/o. C/o Shri Govind R. Bakde,
  Snehal Nagar, Wardha - 442001                      .... PETITIONER

                                  // VERSUS //

  1. State of Maharashtra
  Through its Secretary, Public Health
  Department, Mantralaya,
  Mumbai.

  2. Deputy Director, Health
  Services, Akola Circle, Akola
  Maharashtra

  3. Siddharth s/o Ramrao Pandurnikar
  Age 43 years, R/o Piwili Girni
  Near Water Tank, Shivaji Nagar,
  Nanded - 431602
  Email: [email protected]

  4. Subhadra Madhav Harale,
  Age 22 years, R/o At Shivani Jamga
  Post, Sunegaon, District - Nanded 431708
  Email: subhadrahar[email protected]                             .... RESPONDENTS

  Mr. A.D. Mohgaonkar, Advocate for petitioner.
  Shri S.M. Ukey, Addl. GP for respondent Nos.1 & 2/State.
  ________________________________________________________________
  s




                                CORAM        : SUNIL B. SHUKRE, AND
                                               ANIL S. KILOR, JJ.

DATE : 4th OCTOBER, 2021.

ORAL JUDGMENT: [PER: S.B. Shukre, J.]

Heard Shri A.D. Mohgaonkar, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Shri S.M. Ukey, learned Additional GP for respondent

8.wp3852.2021..odt

Nos.1 & 2 who appears by waiving notice for these respondents.

There is no need to issue any notice for respondent Nos.3 & 4 even

any relief has been claimed, as submitted by the learned counsel for

the petitioner, on instructions, only against respondent Nos.1 & 2

though the relief so claim does not form part of the prayer clause.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The matter is

heard finally by the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the

petitioner that as per the advertisement dated 22.02.2019, the

qualification for the post of Dietician was of possession of a degree

in B.Sc (Home Science) course awarded by the Statutory University

and therefore, no candidate, who did not possess B.Sc (Home

Science) degree of a statutory University as of the date of the

advertisement could have been shortlisted and yet, respondent

Nos.1 & 2, who were not qualified so, were included in the two

select lists, and illegally.

4. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for

the petitioner that once a qualification is prescribed in the

advertisement, it is not open to the appointing authority to change

the qualification and consider permitting some different

8.wp3852.2021..odt

qualification for making some candidates as eligible for being

appointed to the advertised posts and in the present case, even

though an objection has been taken by the petitioner regarding

respondent Nos.3 & 4 as not possessing a degree in B.Sc (Home

Science) course from a Statutory University, as of the date of the

advertisement i.e. 22.02.2019, the respondent Nos.1 & 2, for some

reason or the other, are delaying to take decision in the matter

which has started to affect adversely the career prospects of the

petitioner, who has already qualified for the post of Dietician.

5. We have gone through the objection dated 16.06.2021

and also the reply given to the petitioner by the Director, Health

Services, Directorate Pune, dated 24.08.2021. We have also gone

through the other documents filed on record of the case. We find

that although a candidate from open category possessing a degree

of a Statutory University in B.Sc (Home Science) course has been

given an appointment, in case of the petitioner, no such decision is

being taken and in our opinion, the delay in taking of a decision in

case of the petitioner does not augur well for the administration and

also health services in general in the State of Maharashtra.

8.wp3852.2021..odt

6. In view of above, we find that this petition can be partly

allowed by issuing necessary directions to respondent Nos.1 & 2.

7. The petition is partly allowed, respondent Nos.1 & 2

are directed to decide the objection dated 16.06.2021 filed by the

petitioner in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and

in any case within two weeks from the date of the order. The other

reliefs claimed are dismissed as not pressed.

Rule accordingly. No costs.

                             JUDGE                                  JUDGE
Prity