Bombay High Court
Sunny Hemraj Uke vs General Manager, ... on 7 September, 2021
Bench: S.B. Shukre, Anil S. Kilor
9-wp-3386-21.odt
1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3386 OF 2021
Sunny Hemraj Uke
-Vs-
General Manager, (Administration), Maharashtra State, Seeds Corporation Ltd.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders.
or directions and Registrar's orders.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. M.K.Kulkarni, counsel for the petitioner.
CORAM : SUNIL B.SHUKRE &
ANIL S.KILOR, JJ.
DATE : 07.09.2021.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. The petitioner being desirous of securing his
appointment as a Jr. Engineer had taken part in the
selection process held by respondent and by the selection
list, dated 22.08.2018, the petitioner was kept on the
waiting list. The candidate who was selected was Ranjit
Ashok Nitnaware and in case, Ranjit Ashok Nitnaware
had not joined the post, turn of the petitioner would have
come and the petitioner would have been given the
appointment in place of Ranjit Ashok Nitnaware.
3. Ranjit Ashok Nitnaware, as seen from his
resignation letter, dated 13.08.2019, expressed his
inability to join the post on 20.08.2019. Therefore, he
sent his resignation from the post. Although the
communication dated 13.08.2019 makes a reference to
resignation from the post, the issue of resignation was
not involved as Ranjit Ashok Nitnaware had not joined
Kavita
9-wp-3386-21.odt
the post. This communication could be understood as
refusal of Ranjit Ashok Nitnaware to join the post with
effect from 20.08.2019.
4. Now, with this communication dated
13.08.2019, which is in the nature of regret letter sent by
Ranjit Ashok Nitnawre, is considered as effective from
the date on which it was received, the time that was left
in the hands of the respondent authority to complete the
process of issuing the appointment letter to the petitioner
in place of Ranjit Ashok Nitnaware was very short.
5. As per the GR dated 13.06.2018, the validity of
the waiting list is only for one year and it stands lapsed
after the expiry of one year from the date of the waiting
list. In this case, date of the selection/waiting list is
22.08.2018 and it would have lapsed on 21.08.2018.
6. Thus, the period that was left for the respondent
authority to issue appointment letter to the petitioner
was of only eight days which, in ordinary course of
circumstances would not have been sufficient for the
respondent authority, as they would have been required
to complete different formalities.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
when the selected candidate did not join, it was
incumbent upon the respondent to have automatically
and on it's own, appointed the wait listed candidate i.e
the petitioner and it could not be permitted to take
benefit of its own wrong. He places reliance upon view
Kavita
9-wp-3386-21.odt
taken by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court at
Aurangabad in Writ Petition No.7848 of 2012 (Sunita
Bhujangrao Raut Vs. Zilla Parishad, Nanded and ors.)
decided on 12.02.2014.
8. There can be no second opinion about the
observations made by the co-ordinate Bench at
Aurangabad. When selected candidate tenders
resignation, and it is accepted by the authority, it
would be necessary for the authority to turn to the
candidates on the waiting list and select the one, who is
the senior most amongst all for being appointed in place
of the candidate who has given resignation. But, the
facts of the said case decided at Aurangabad disclosed
that the select/waiting list was prepared on 25.03.2011
and the selected candidate tendered her resignation on
12.07.2011 and immediately thereafter, on 14.07.2011
the Child Development Project Officer sought permission
of the Zilla Parishad to appoint the candidate who was at
Sr. No.1 of the waiting list. But, the Zilla Parishad sat
over the request and after lapse of about one year,
informed the wait listed candidate who was to be
appointed in place of the selected candidate that due to
passing of more than an year, the waiting list had stood
lapsed. It was in this context, the Division Bench at
Aurangabad observed that the respondent authority
could not be permitted to take advantage of its own
wrong.
Kavita
9-wp-3386-21.odt
9. In the said judgment delivered at Aurangabad
Bench a reference has been made to the observations of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P.
Vrs. Ram Swarup Saroj, reported in AIR 2000 S.C.1097
regarding the manner in which cases involving such
issues should be decided. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
has held that the issue about validity of the list of
selected candidates for a period of one year only is
primarily a question depending upon the facts and then
the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the non
appointment was questioned in the month of October
1997, which was before the expiry of one year from the
date of the list and that the period of one year had
lapsed during the pendency of the litigation. That was
the reason why the Hon'ble Supreme Court found that
the petitioner could not be declined the relief only on
the ground of lapsing of the selection list during the
pendency of the petition. In the present case, the
petition has been filed about two years after lapsing of
the selection list and therefore, the petitioner cannot
seek any assistance from the case of Sunita Bhujangrao
Raut (supra).
10. Then, finding oneself as a wait listed candidate
does not confer any right to be appointed nor does it
raise any claim for the wait listed candidate for his
eventual appointment to the post in place of the selected
candidate, when the selected candidate does not join the
post.
Kavita
9-wp-3386-21.odt
11. Apart from what is stated above, then, the
petitioner has approached this Court in August-2021,
after a lapse of two years from the last date of expiry of
the selection/wait list. This has resulted in filing a
petition on a cause which has already been rendered
infructuous.
12. In view of above, we do not see any substance
in the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition sands summarily
dismissed. No costs.
(ANIL S. KILOR,J) (SUNIL B. SHUKRE,J)
Kavita
