Bombay High Court
Mamta Rama Padvi vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 22 September, 2022
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil, Sandeep V. Marne
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.4303 OF 2021
Mamta Rama Padvi
Age : 32 years, Occu : Service,
R/o. Dab, Tal. Akkalkuwa,
Dist. Nandurbar. .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through the Secretary,
Tribal Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Additional Tribal Commissioner,
Tribal Development Department,
Division Nasik, Adiwasi Vikas Bhavan,
Ground Floor, Gadkari Chowk, Old Agra
Road, Nasik, Tal. & Dist. Nasik
3. The Project Officer,
Integrated Tribal Development Project,
Taloda, Tal. Taloda, Dist. Nandurbar
4. Daksha Chandrasing Naik
Age : 31 years, Occu : Service
R/o. Nadgavhan, Tal. Taloda,
Dist. Nandurbar. .. Respondents
...
Mr. Tukaram M. Venjane, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mrs. Vaishali N. Patil - Jadhav, AGP for Respondent No.1
Mr. S.M. Kamble, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 & 3
...
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL &
SANDEEP V. MARNE, JJ.
DATE : 22-09-2022
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) :
. Heard. Rule. It is made returnable forthwith. Learned
AGP Mrs. Vaishali N. Patil - Jadhav waives service for respondent
no.1 and learned advocate Mr. S.M. Kamble waives service for
Respondent Nos.2 and 3. At their joint request the matter is heard
finally at the admission stage.
2. By the present petition, the petitioner seeks appointment
on the post of Superintendent (Female) in Ashram School by
cancelling the appointment order issued in favour of respondent no.4.
The claim of the petitioner is premised on the contention that she is
entitled to be granted 30 marks (21 marks in written examination
and 9 marks for experience) as against only 29 marks secured by
respondent no.4.
3. The controversy is about entitlement for award of 9
marks to the petitioner on the basis of her experience certificate
dated 31.12.2019. Under the Govt. Resolution dated 01.12.2018,
read with letter dated 27.02.2019, nine marks are required to be
awarded for experience between 4 to 6 years. At the time of
submission of her online application form, the petitioner was in
possession of experience certificate dated 12.06.2019 which certified
her experience of only 3 years and 3 months. After the entire
selection process was completed and respondent no.4 was appointed
vide appointment order dated 11.12.2019, a corrected Experience
Certificate was issued to her on 31.12.2019 certifying her experience
of 4 years and 3 months. It is her case that she be awarded 9 marks
on the basis of the said corrected experience certificate and she be
appointed in place of respondent no.4.
4. We find that the case of the petitioner to be totally
unacceptable. The corrected experience certificate issued after
completion of selection process and appointment of respondent no.4
cannot be the basis for reopening of the entire selection process,
which was already finalized. The petitioner ought to have procured
correct experience certificate at the time of submission of her online
application form. There was one more opportunity to her to submit
correct experience certificate, when document verification was
conducted on 19.09.2019. However, even as on 19.09.2019 all that
she possessed was the experience certificate dated 12.06.2019
certifying her experience of only 3 years and 3 months. It appears
that she did not submit any experience certificate on the day when
the document verification was conducted. This is apparent from the
contents of her representation dated 03.01.2020. The appointing
authority therefore cannot be faulted in awarding marks towards
experience on the basis of the documents that were submitted on
19.09.2019.
5. Long after the selection process was finalized and the
respondent no.4 was already appointed on 11.12.2019, the petitioner
procured corrected experience certificate on 31.12.2019 and
submitted the same vide her letter dated 03.01.2020. The expectation
of the petitioner that appointment of respondent no.4 would be
cancelled by reopening the finalized selection process is
overoptimistic and untenable in law. It is trite that the selection of the
candidate is required to be made by award of marks on the basis of
the documents submitted either along with the application form or at
least on the date of document verification. The documents procured
subsequently are required to be ignored. In such circumstances, no
case is made out by the petitioner for cancellation of appointment
order of respondent no.4 or for her own appointment. Consequently,
we find that the writ petition being devoid of any merits is liable to
be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed without any order as to the
costs. Rule is discharged.
( SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. ) ( MANGESH S. PATIL, J. )
GGP
