Sudhir Madhukar Padole, ... vs The State Of Mah. Thr. Secty., ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 12149 Bom

1/4                                                 Judg.205.wp.4693.2008



         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                   NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

                     WRIT PETITION NO. 4693 OF 2008

      Sudhir Madhukar Padole
      Aged about 37 Years, Occu - Nil; R/o
      Bhawani    Ward,      Old   Mangalwari,
                                                      ... PETITIONER
      Bramhapuri, District Chandrapur.

                 VERSUS

1.    The State of Maharashtra
      Through its Secretary, Department of Law
      and Judiciary, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

2.    The High Court of Judicature at Bombay,
      Through its Registrar (Judicial), Fort,
      Mumbai.

3.    The District and Sessions Judge,
      Gadchiroli, Tahsil and District Gadchiroli.

4.    The Advisory Committee,
      Constituted for selections to the post of
      Junior Clerk, District and Sessions Court,
      Gadchiroli.                                   ... RESPONDENTS


Ms. Poonam D. Pisurde, Advocate h/f Mr. S. V. Sirpurkar, Advocate for
Petitioner.
Ms. N. P. Mehta, AGP for Respondent No.1/State.
Mr. Anand Jaiswal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. A. M. Kukdey,
Advocate for Respondent No.2.


      CORAM      :      A. S. CHANDURKAR & ANIL L. PANSARE, JJ.

      DATE       :      NOVEMBER 25, 2022.
 2/4                                                    Judg.205.wp.4693.2008



JUDGMENT - [PER ANIL L. PANSARE, J.]

.          Heard Ms. Pisurde, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, Ms.

Mehta, learned AGP for the Respondent No.1/State and Mr. Anand Jaiswal, learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No.2.

2. By this Petition, the Petitioner takes exception to the action of the Respondent Nos.3 and 4, omitting the name of the Petitioner from selection list prepared for the post of Junior Clerk, pursuant to the advertisement dated 19th August, 2004.

3. The short question, that we are required to consider is, whether the Petitioner was eligible for appointment as a Junior Clerk on the establishment of the District and Sessions Court, Gadchiroli.

4. The Applications were to be submitted for the post of Junior Clerk on or before 4th September, 2004. One of the eligibility criterias was that the Applicant should possess the knowledge of Computer.

5. Admittedly, the Petitioner was not having any document showing that he had knowledge of computer on 4th September, 2004. The Petitioner has placed on record the certificate issued by Maharashtra State Board of Technical Education, Mumbai indicating that the Petitioner has successfully completed the course of Maharashtra State Certificate in Information Technology (MS-CIT) in July-2005.

6. Ms. Pisurde, learned Counsel for the Petitioner admits that the Petitioner acquired essential knowledge of computer in July-2005.

3/4 Judg.205.wp.4693.2008

She has relied upon the Government Resolution dated 19 th March, 2003 issued by the General Administrative Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. A decision was taken by the Government that all those employees in Group 'A', 'B' and 'C' whose selection process has commenced on or after 19th March, 2003 shall obtain the certificate of computer course within two years of the date of appointment. Thus, according to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the Petitioner ought to have been appointed and given an opportunity to acquire knowledge of computer in two years of appointment and since the Petitioner has acquired the knowledge of computer in July-2005, he ought to have been confirmed in service. She further submits that the candidates, who obtained less marks than the Petitioner have been given appointment. She has referred to the letter dated 14/10/2008, by which the Respondent - District Court, Gadchiroli has informed the Petitioner that though he obtained 54 marks, he has been disqualified by the Advisory Committee for absence of computer knowledge.

7. To cut-short the controversy, Mr. Anand Jaiswal, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2 has submitted that he has received instructions that the administrative committee of the High Court in its meeting dated 12 th August,2003 has decided not to adopt the Government Resolution dated 19th March, 2003, and that therefore, concession granted therein cannot be extended to the Petitioner.

8. We have given thoughtful consideration to the claim made by the Petitioner, however, with complete sympathy, we are unable to grant any relief. The only document that could have made Petitioner eligible, 4/4 Judg.205.wp.4693.2008

was the Government Resolution dated 19 th March, 2003. The administrative committee of the High Court has taken a decision not to adopt the said Government Resolution. There is, otherwise, no dispute that on 4th September, 2004 the Petitioner was not having computer knowledge, and that therefore, he was not eligible for appointment. There is, thus, no merit in the Petition. The same is liable to be dismissed and stands dismissed accordingly.

9. Rule is discharged. No costs.

                  (ANIL L. PANSARE, J.)                            (A. S. CHANDURKAR, J.)



                  Yadav VG




Digitally Signed ByVIJAYA
GOURISHANKAR YADAV
Signing Date:29.11.2022
14:45