Bombay High Court
Rupali Deelip Gosavi vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 4 May, 2022
Bench: Virendrasingh Gyansingh Bisht
6-aswp6969-2019
AGK
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 6969 OF 2019
Rupali Deelip Gosavi ...Petitioner
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents
Ms. Madhavi Ayyappan i/by Talekar & Associates for
the petitioner.
Mr. B. V. Samant, AGP for respondent no. 1/State.
Mr. Asif I. Patel for respondent no. 2/MPSC.
CORAM: DIPANKAR DATTA, CJ &
V. G. BISHT, J.
DATE: MAY 4, 2022
P.C.:
1. Dismissal of the petitioner's original application (OA No.
63 of 2018) by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal,
Mumbai (hereafter "the Tribunal", for short) by its order dated
8th May 2019 has given rise to this writ petition.
2. The petitioner was an aspirant for the post of Excise
Inspector. Although it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner
by Ms. Ayyappan, learned advocate that the petitioner had
applied for consideration in the open category (female), she
was considered as a reserved candidate belonging to NT(B).
Having scored 125 marks, the petitioner could not be
accommodated on any post reserved for NT(B) candidates.
However, the last ranked candidate in the open (female)
6-aswp6969-2019
category, who obtained 115 marks, was appointed on a post
for the open (female) category candidates.
3. We have ascertained from Mr. B. V. Samant, learned AGP
appearing for the respondents that in all 300 posts were
sought to be filled in by the process in question and that one
(1) post has been kept reserved owing to pendency of the
original application before the Tribunal and this writ petition.
4. We have perused the judgment and order dated 4th
March 2021 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in
Civil Writ Petition No. 2002 of 2019 (Lata Shyamrao
Sangolkar v The State of Maharashtra & Ors.) wherein
the decision of the Supreme Court reported in (2021) 4 SCC
542 (Saurav Yadav & Ors. Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh
& Ors.) was considered and relief granted to the petitioner
considering the factual position that had such petitioner been
considered as an open female category candidate and not a
reserved candidate, she could have been appointed on a post
in the open female category.
5. Mr. Samant does not dispute that the issue raised in this
writ petition is squarely covered by the decision in Lata
Shyamrao Sangolkar (supra).
6. In that view of the matter, the impugned judgment and
order of the Tribunal stands quashed and set aside. The writ
petition is allowed with the following directions:
a) The Petitioner shall be entitled to appointment as
Excise Inspector on the post that has been kept
6-aswp6969-2019
vacant, immediately, but not later than a fortnight
from date upon compliance of all formalities;
b) If the petitioner successfully completes the period
of probation, she shall be confirmed in service;
c) Although the petitioner's appointment shall be
prospective, she shall have the benefit of notional
appointment on and from the date whosoever
amongst the respondents 3 to 7 was appointed
first, and such notional appointment shall be
counted for the purpose of the petitioner's retiral
benefits, should she be confirmed in service; and
d) Apart from retiral benefits on the basis of the
aforesaid clause, the petitioner shall not be entitled
to any other benefits, including seniority.
7. There shall be no order as to costs.
(V. G. BISHT, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)
Digitally
signed by
PRAVIN
PRAVIN DASHARATH
DASHARATH PANDIT
PANDIT Date:
2022.05.05
17:56:11
+0530
