Nilima Sarwel Ghule vs The Registrar Vasantrao Naik ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 13812 Bom

                                       1                               rast 25552.2020

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
               BENCH AT AURANGABAD

      924 REVIEW APPLICATION STAMP NO. 25552 OF 2020
                           WITH
             CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8857 OF 2021

                    NILIMA SARWEL GHULE
                           VERSUS
      THE REGISTRAR VASANTRAO NAIK MARATHWADA KRISHI
                   VIDYAPEETH AND OTHERS
                             ...
        Advocate for Applicant: Mr. Dhage Vivek J.
        AGP for Respondents/State: Mr. S. P. Tiwari
                             ...

                                CORAM: S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
                                       SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ.

                                DATE:       24th SEPTEMBER, 2021

 PER COURT:

 1.       The      petitioner              seeks    review      of      the       order

dated 31.01.2020 dismissing the writ petition. The said order was also assailed before the Hon'ble Apex Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court dismissed the SLP. The Apex Court did not find merit in the SLP.

2. Mr. Dhage, learned Advocate for the applicant submits that present respondent no. 3 had never applied from S.C. (Female) category. She had applied from S.C. category. As she had not applied from female category she could not have been considered from General (Female) category. The predominant consideration would be that the candidate should apply from horizontal reservation

2 rast 25552.2020

i.e. from female category. There was only one post available in S.C. category and that was for S.C. No post was reserved for S.C. (Female). In view of that, respondent no. 3 applied from S.C. category only and not from Female category. In view of that she could not have been considered from General (Female) category. The learned Advocate refers to the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Saurav Yadav and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2021) 4 SCC 542 and refers to the various Judgments that are discussed therein.

3. It is not disputed that present respondent no. 3 has secured more marks than the present applicant and respondent no. 3 is female. She had applied from S.C. The Judgment referred to above clarifies that there is no category like General / Open category. The said category is Open Competition Category. It is not the case that the non-female is considered from General (Female) category. We had observed while dismissing the writ petition in the Judgment under review that the respondent no. 3 was well within the age fixed for Open Competition Category and had secured more marks than the petitioner. It was also not the case of the petitioner that respondent no. 3 did not possess the non-creamylayer certificate required for General (Female) category. No such averments were made, meaning thereby that

3 rast 25552.2020

respondent no. 3 was eligible to be considered from Female category. Only one post was reserved for Female category i.e. General (Female).

4. There is nothing to bar respondent no. 3 from being considered from General (Female) category in view of the aforesaid factual matrix. In light of the above, we do not find the case for review is made out.

5. Review Application and civil application are rejected. No costs.

[SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J.] [S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.]

marathe