Wednesday, 22, Apr, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Pandurang Sambhaji Totewad vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 107 Bom

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 107 Bom
Judgement Date : 4 January, 2022

Bombay High Court
Pandurang Sambhaji Totewad vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 4 January, 2022
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala, S. G. Dige
                                       1                                      wp 1433.2020

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
               BENCH AT AURANGABAD

               919 WRIT PETITION NO.1433 OF 2020
              PANDURANG SAMBHAJI TOTEWAD
                         VERSUS
         THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
                          ...
  Advocate for Petitioner: Mr. Thorat Chandrakant R.
      AGP for Respondent No. 1: Mr. A. S. Shinde
    Advocate for Respondent No. 2: Mr. A. S. Bajaj
                          ...

                                       CORAM:      S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
                                                   S. G. DIGE, JJ.
                                       DATE:       04th JANUARY, 2022

 PER COURT:

1. The Petitioner is appointed as Lower Division

Clerk with Respondent No. 2 on compassionate

ground on or about 23.04.1997. On or about

31.12.2019, the Petitioner was placed on

supernumerary post on the ground that the

Petitioner belongs to reserved category and that

the Petitioner has not submitted the Validity

Certificate.

2. Mr. Thorat, learned Counsel for the

Petitioner submits that the Petitioner was not

given the benefit of reservation at any point of

time. Even, in the Seniority List prepared in the

2 wp 1433.2020

year-2021, his name was shown from General

category. The Petitioner had also represented that

he will not take benefit of reservation. The order

placing the Petitioner on supernumerary post is

erroneous. The learned Counsel relies on the

Judgment of the division Bench of this Court in

case of Ajinkya s/o. Rajiv Khadatkar Vs. Managing

Director, Maharashtra State Electricity

Distribution Co. Ltd. and others reported in

2019 (6) ALL M R 187.

3. Mr. Bajaj, learned Counsel for Respondent

No. 2 submits that all along in the Service Book

the Petitioner is shown from the Scheduled Tribe

category. In the Seniority List published of

Nanded Circle on 17.07.2007 the Petitioner is

shown at Serial No. 106 and his tribe is reflected

as belonging to Scheduled Tribe. The Petitioner

was in the zone of consideration for the

promotional post as the Petitioner belonged to

Scheduled Tribe category and the relaxation was

also provided to him. The Policy has been prepared

under the Board Resolution dated 29.09.2010 for

3 wp 1433.2020

appointing the persons on compassionate ground. If

the person does not desire to get the benefit of

reservation he has to submit the certificate

regarding not availing the benefits. In the Roster

Register also the Petitioner is shown to belong to

Scheduled Tribe. The Petitioner failed to submit

the Validity Certificate, as such is rightly

placed on supernumerary post as per the

Administrative Order No. 592 dated 31.12.2019.

4. We have considered the submissions canvassed

by the learned Counsel for the parties.

5. It is not disputed that the Petitioner was

appointed on compassionate ground. It is submitted

that the Petitioner was considered in zone of

promotion from the reserved category, however, the

Petitioner was not promoted. If a person is

appointed on compassionate ground then it is not

as against the reserved post. The Judgment of the

Division Bench of this Court in case of Ajinkya

s/o. Rajiv Khadatkar Vs. Managing Director,

Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co.

4 wp 1433.2020

Ltd. and others (Supra) would squarely apply. No

separate Rules are pointed out. On the contrary,

in the affidavit of Respondent No. 2 it has been

clarified that if the person appointed on

compassionate ground does not want to avail the

benefit of reservation he should give such

certificate. The Petitioner does not dispute that

he has never claimed the benefit of reservation

and would never claim the benefit of reservation

in the employment with Respondent No. 2.

6. In light of that, the order placing the

Petitioner on supernumerary post is quashed and

set aside. It is made clear that the Petitioner is

not entitled for the benefit of reservation in the

employment with Respondent No. 2 from the initial

date of appointment till he attains the age of

superannuation.

7. The Writ Petition accordingly allowed in

above terms and stands disposed of. No costs.

[S. G. DIGE, J.] [S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] marathe

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IDRC

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter