Bombay High Court
Sanjeev Balaji Ubale vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 5 October, 2021
Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge, S. G. Mehare
1 912-WP.3001-20, oral jud.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.3001 OF 2020
Sanjeev S/o Balaji Ubale,
Age 49 years, Occu. Agri.,
R/o Gadegaon, Wajegaon,
Nanded, Tq. & Dist. Nanded. ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Finance Department Mantralaya,
Mumbai.
2. The Director of Account
And Treasuries, Finance Department,
Government of Maharashtra,
Mumbai, Mumbai Post Trust, Fort House,
Thakrasi House, 3rd floor, Shurji Vallabhdas Marg,
Belard Estate, Mumbai-400 001.
3. The Assistant Director of Local
Fund Accounts Audit, 3rd floor,
Lekha Kosh Bhavan, Near Collector Office,
Fazalpura, Aurangabad Division,
Aurangabad.
4. The Assistant Director Selection Committee,
Through the Director of Local
Fund Accounts Audit, 3rd floor,
Lekha Kosh Bhavan, Near Collector Office,
Fazalpura, Aurangabad Division,
Aurangabad.
5. Shivaji S/o Manchakrao Deshmukh,
Age 49 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o Nandgaon (Dudhna), Tq. Jintur,
Dist. Parbhani. ... Respondents
::: Uploaded on - 07/10/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2021 08:54:37 :::
2 912-WP.3001-20, oral jud.odt
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. A. G. Vasmatkar.
AGP for Respondents/State : Mr. P. S. Patil.
Advocate for Respondent No.5 : Mr. P. N. Kalani.
...
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND
S. G. MEHARE, JJ.
DATE : 05.10.2021
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.) :-
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally
by the consent of the parties.
2. The petitioner has put forth prayer clauses "B" and "C"
as under :
"B] By issuing appropriate writ, order or direction in the like
nature, this Hon'ble court may pleased to direct the respondents
authorities to give the appointment of present petitioner on the
post of Junior Auditor."
"C] The judgment and order dated 16.01.2020 passed by the
member of Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in Original
Application No.25/2020 may kindly be quashed and set aside."
3. We have considered the strenuous submissions of the
learned advocates for the petitioner and the respondents. With
their assistance, we have gone through the petition paper
3 912-WP.3001-20, oral jud.odt
book. We have perused the impugned judgment dated
16.01.2020, threadbare, delivered by the learned Maharashtra
Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No.25 of 2020
filed by the petitioner.
4. Following factors are undisputed :-
(a) The petitioner has secured 96% marks out of 100%
in written exam conducted by the competent
authority.
(b) Respondent No.5 has secured 90% marks in the said
examination.
(c) Both, the petitioner as well as respondent No.5, have
secured less than 55% marks at the commerce
graduation level. The petitioner has secured only
51% marks.
(d) A person who has scored less than 55% marks at the
graduation level in the commerce faculty, is not
eligible to be considered for appointment.
(e) The petitioner apprehends that respondent No.5 may
be considered.
4 912-WP.3001-20, oral jud.odt
(f) An affidavit-in-reply has been filed on behalf of
respondent Nos.1 to 4 in which the State has taken a
specific stand that one who is not eligible to be
appointed, would not succeed in securing an
employment.
(g) Relaxation of 5% at the graduation level is prescribed
for candidates belonging to the schedule castes and
schedule tribes categories and the petitioner has not
applied through any of these categories. He has
applied from the S.E.B.C. (Socially and Economically
Backward Classes), which was applicable in the State
of Maharashtra at the relevant time.
5. Considering the above, it is apparent that the petitioner,
having scored less than 55% marks at the graduation level and
having not applied through the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled
Tribes Categories, would neither be eligible for appointment
nor would the relaxation of 5% applicable to the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes categories be made applicable to
him.
5 912-WP.3001-20, oral jud.odt
6. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held in S. K. Kushwaha and
others Vs. D. K. Joshi and others, AIR 2002 SC 1455 that when
there is any provision for relaxation of a condition while
considering a candidate for selection, the said relaxation has to
be made judiciously and the factors warranting relaxation
should be verified carefully.
7. Considering the above, we do not find that the petitioner
could be said to be eligible for appointment. The rejection of
his candidature cannot be faulted. The order of the learned
Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dated 16.01.2020 cannot
be termed as being perverse or erroneous.
8. In view of the above, this petition is dismissed.
9. Rule is discharged.
(S. G. MEHARE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
...
vmk/-
