Jijabrao Dhondu Khairnar vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 12873 Bom

                                     1              931-wp 6136-2018.odt



               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                          WRIT PETITION NO. 6136 OF 2018

 Jijabrao Dhondu Khairnar                                        .. Petitioner

          Versus

 The State of Maharashtra and others                             .. Respondents

 Mr. Rakesh Nemichandji Jain, Advocate for the Petitioner.
 Mr. S. K. Tambe, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
 Mr. P. B. Patil, Advocate for Respondent No. 4.

                               CORAM :    S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
                                          R. N. LADDHA, JJ.

DATED : 08th September, 2021.

PER COURT:-

. The petitioner assails the judgment delivered by the Maharashtra

Administrative Tribunal dismissing the Original Application filed by the

petitioner.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contends that

the petitioner had applied for the post of Peon from General category.

There are 13 posts of Peon available at Nandurbar Division. One post

was for General category. In General category, two posts were meant

for women and one post was meant for Project Affected Person (PAP)

category. The candidate from PAP category was not available. The seat

would go to General category. As the petitioner had applied from

1 of 3

2 931-wp 6136-2018.odt

General category, the petitioner was entitled for the appointment. The

authorities illegally appointed present respondent No. 4. The

respondent No. 4 had applied from OBC (PAP) category. According to

the learned counsel, the respondent No. 4 could not have been

considered from General category.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under the

Government Resolution dated 18.07.2008, the seats reserved for PAP

person were cancelled. In view of that, the seat meant for PAP category

would go to General category candidate.

4. Mr. Patil, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 submits that

respondent No. 4 has secured more marks than the petitioner and as

such, is considered from General category.

5. We have also heard the learned A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

6. Admittedly, the petitioner has not applied from General (PAP)

category. The petitioner does not possess the certificate of PAP.

7. The petitioner has secured 78 marks. The respondent No. 4 has

secured 82 marks. The respondent No. 4 is from Other Backward Class

(PAP) category.

                                                                             2 of 3





                                      3                931-wp 6136-2018.odt

8. Under the Government Resolution dated 18.07.2008 the seats

meant for PAP category were cancelled and the posts from PAP category

were not filled in.

9. In view of that, the post meant for PAP category went to the open

competition category and as respondent No. 4 has secured more marks,

certainly, he would be considered from open competition category.

10. The Tribunal has not committed any error.

11. In the light of that, writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

 ( R. N. LADDHA )                                ( S. V. GANGAPURWALA )
      JUDGE                                                JUDGE




 P.S.B.




                                                                                3 of 3