Bombay High Court
Mahesh Shankarrao Moklikar vs Vasantrao Naik Marathwada ... on 12 September, 2022
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil, Sandeep V. Marne
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.11844 OF 2021
Mahesh s/o. Shankarrao Moklikar
Age : 29 years, Occu : Student,
R/o. Mokli, Post Kundalwadi,
Tal. Dharmabad, Dist. Nanded .. Petitioner
Versus
1. Vasantrao Naik Marathwada
Agricultural University,
Through its Registrar, Basmat
Road, Parbhani.
2. Deepak s/o. Gunwanta Ingole,
Age : 31 years, Occu : Student,
R/o. Vaijnath Hostel, Vasantrao Naik
Krushi Vidyapeeth, Parbhani. .. Respondents
...
Mr. Pratap P. Mandlik, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Manish N. Navandar, Advocate for Respondent No.1
Mr. Vishnu Y. Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.2
...
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL &
SANDEEP V. MARNE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 06-09-2022
PRONOUNCED ON : 12-09-2022
JUDGMENT (PER SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) :
. Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Learned
Advocate Mr. Manish N. Navandar waives service for respondent
no.1. Learned Advocate Mr. Vishnu Y. Patil waives service for
respondent no.2. At the joint request of the parties, the matter is
heard finally at the stage of admission.
2. When the petition came up before this Court on
26.10.2021, it was directed that if any appointment orders are issued,
the same would be subject to the decision of the petition. It appears
that no appointment order has yet been issued by the respondent -
University.
3. The petitioner challenges revised merit list dated
19.01.2021 issued by the respondent - University and seeks
appointment on the post of Senior Research Assistant (Agriculture
Department).
4. The facts of the case, in nutshell, are as under :
. An advertisement was issued by the respondent -
University on 25.07.2017 inter alia for the post of Senior Research
Assistant (Agriculture Department). One post was reserved for O.B.C.
category. The petitioner and respondent no.2 applied in pursuance of
the advertisement and both of them belong to O.B.C. category.
Respondent no.2 submitted two separate applications, one from Open
category and another from O.B.C. category. On 15.01.2021 merit list
was published, in which, petitioner's name was shown at serial no.1
in O.B.C. Category, having secured 110 marks. However, later a
revised merit list was published on 19.01.2021, in which both
petitioner and respondent no.2 were shown to have secured 110
marks. Against the name of respondent no.2, numbers of two hall
tickets were mentioned. The petitioner is younger than respondent
no.2 and since he has apprehension that the respondent - University
may appoint respondent no.2, the petitioner has filed this petition
challenging the revised merit list.
5. Mr. Mandlik, learned advocate for the petitioner would
submit that respondent no.2 could not have filed two applications in
pursuance of the advertisement for same post in two separate
categories. He would further submit that even if respondent no.2 had
submitted two applications, the respondent - University erred in
entertaining both those applications. It is further submitted that even
though respondent no.2 had also applied from O.B.C. category, his
candidature was considered only for open category. This is claimed
on the basis of general merit list, in which the category of respondent
no.2 was shown as 'Open'. Mr. Mandlik would further submit that in
a similar case of Mr. Kale Ravi Kurmadas, the respondent - University
refused to consider candidature in O.B.C. category and following
similar course of action, candidature of respondent no.2 in O.B.C.
category ought to have been rejected.
6. Mr. Navandar, learned advocate appearing for the
respondent - University justified the action by submitting that
respondent no.2 was issued two hall tickets. He invited our attention
to two separate applications supported by two separate challans of
payment of fees, by which respondent no.2 applied in two different
categories. He would submit that since respondent no.2 belongs to
OBC category, the respondent - University has validly taken a
decision to consider candidature of respondent no.2 in O.B.C.
category.
7. Mr. Patil, learned advocate appearing for respondent
no.2 submitted that there was no bar in the advertisement for
submitting multiple applications. He would submit that the hall
tickets issued to the candidates did not specify the particular category
under which the candidate was to appear in the examination.
He distinguished the case of Mr. Kale Ravi Kurmadas stating that he
had not submitted two separate applications under Open and O.B.C.
category like that of respondent no.2. He, therefore, prayed for
dismissal of the petition.
8. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties at
length, we find that the advertisement did not contain any specific
bar for submitting two applications for two categories. Despite
absence of specific bar in the advertisement for submitting multiple
applications, it was open to the respondent - University to reject the
candidature of respondent no.2 for having submitted two applications
for same post in different categories. However, the same is not done.
Rather two separate hall tickets were issued to respondent no.2 for
participating in the selection for the same post. The examination,
however, was common. Even though ideally respondent no.2 ought
not to have submitted two separate applications for Open and O.B.C.
categories, we find that in absence of any specific bar to that effect in
the advertisement, the respondent - University was justified in
treating his candidature in O.B.C. category. Even though initially
candidature of respondent no.2 was considered in Open category
alone, he raised objection to the merit list and the said objection has
been considered and corrective action is taken by the University. We
do not find any error is committed by the respondent - University in
doing so.
9. There is no dispute about the fact that respondent no.2
belongs to O.B.C. category. Since the impugned action resulted in
appointment of O.B.C. category candidate against post reserved for
that category, the petitioner cannot be permitted to take benefit of
technicalities.
10. The contention of Mr. Mandlik that the case of
Mr. Kale Ravi Kurmadas is similar, is incorrect. He had applied only
under Open category and not under O.B.C. category. The respondent
- University rightly did not permit the candidate to change his
category subsequently. As against this, respondent no.2 had
specifically applied under O.B.C. category as well. Therefore, the case
of Mr. Kale Ravi Kurmadas is clearly distinguishable.
11. Reliance of Mr. Mandlik on representation of respondent
no.2 dated 18.01.2021 is also misplaced. Mr. Mandlik relied upon
admission of respondent no.2 that he had participated in the
examination on the basis of hall ticket No.610566 (Open category).
We have perused both the hall tickets issued to respondent no.2
bearing Nos.610565 and 610566 and are unable to find any specific
category being mentioned on either of the hall tickets. Thus, the hall
tickets did not restrict candidature of respondent no.2 to any
particular category.
12. We are, therefore, of the considered view that no fault
can be found in the revised merit list prepared by the respondent -
University. The petition being devoid of merits is liable to be
dismissed and it is dismissed without any order as to costs.
13. Rule is discharged.
( SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. ) ( MANGESH S. PATIL, J. )
GGP
