Bombay High Court
Sewakdas S/O Pundlikrao Awale vs The State Of Maha., Thr. Principal ... on 18 April, 2023
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar, M. W. Chandwani
1 wp-1947-22-final.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 1947 OF 2022
Sewakdas S/o. Pundalikrao Awale,
Aged 53 years, Occ. Senior Deputy Director,
Regional Office, Directorate of Geology and
Mining, 27, Khanij Bhawan, Cement Road,
Shivaji Nagar, Nagpur.
Resident of Plot No. 24, Shanti Park,
Harihar Beltarodi Road, Besa, Nagpur. . . . PETITIONER
// V E R S U S //
1. The State of Maharashtra through
its Principal Secretary, Industry, Energy
and Labour Department, Industry (9)
Madam Cama Marg, Mantralaya,
Mumbai- 440 032.
2. Maharashtra Public Service Commission,
5th, 7th & 8th Floor, Kuprej Telephone Nigam
Building, Maharshi Karve Marg, Kuprej,
Mumbai - 440 021 through its Secretary.
3. Shri Gajanan Son of Domaji Kamde,
Aged about 51 years, Occ. District Mining
Officer, Collector Office, Collectorate
Compound, Nagpur-01. . . . RESPONDENTS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri P. S. Wathore, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri A. A. Madiwale, AGP for respondent nos. 1 and 2/State.
Shri Sunil Manohar, Senior Advocate a/w. Shri Rohan R. Deo, Advocate
for respondent no. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM :- A. S. CHANDURKAR & M. W. CHANDWANI, JJ.
RESERVED ON :- 12.04.2023
PRONOUNCED ON :- 18.04.2023
2 wp-1947-22-final.odt
JUDGMENT (PER: M. W. CHANDWANI, J.):-
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard learned
counsel for the parties.
2. The Writ Petition challenges the judgment and order dated
25.03.2022 of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur
Bench, Nagpur (for short, "the MAT") whereby the direction has been
given to respondent nos. 1 and 2 to constitute the Committee for
verification of the documents and the Original Application No.
1015/2021 of the petitioner is partly allowed.
3. The facts germane for disposal of this petition can be
summarized as under:-
On 05.08.2020, respondent no. 2 published an
advertisement to fill up the post of Joint Director, Directorate of
Geology and Mining. The advertisement prescribed the eligibility for
the candidature of the said post in Clause No. 4.3 and 4.4, which read
as under:-
"4.3 Education qualification :- The candidate must-
Possess a post-graduate degree in at least 2 nd Class in
Geology or Applied Geology or any other qualification
declared by Government to be equivalent thereto.
AND THEREAFTER
3 wp-1947-22-final.odt
4.4. Experience :- Possess practical experience of
geological field work and mineral administration work in a
responsible position for a period of not less than 10 years."
4. In the said advertisement, a proforma for certificate of
experience to be given by the employer on his letter-head was given.
In furtherance of the advertisement dated 05.08.2022, applications
from the eligible candidates alongwith necessary documents were
called. A list of eight eligible candidates, who qualified for interview,
was published on 20.07.2021 which include names of respondent no. 3
and the petitioner at Sr. No. 3 and 5, respectively. By the result dated
28.10.2021, respondent no. 3 was shown on top of the list whereas the
petitioner's name was finding place at Sr. No. 2. Accordingly, the name
of respondent no. 3 was recommended for the post of Joint Director,
Directorate of Geology and Mining.
5. The petitioner objected the recommendation of
respondent no. 3 by making representation to the Industry, Energy and
Labour Department of State of Maharashtra on the premise that the
experience certificates furnished by respondent no. 3 are not in
prescribed format; respondent no. 3 has experience of only seven
years; respondent no. 2 had not verified the documents properly and
recommend the name of respondent no. 3 for appointment on the said
post. Since, no cognizance was taken by the Department of Industry,
4 wp-1947-22-final.odt
Energy and Labour, an Original Application before the MAT came to be
filed. By the impugned order dated 25.03.2022, the Original
Application No. 1015/2021 of the petitioner came to be allowed. The
operative order of the MAT in the said Original Application is
reproduced here:-
"ORDER
The original Application is allowed in the following
terms:-
1. The impugned order dated 28.10.2022 declaring
respondent no. 3 fit for the post of Joint Director, Group-A
from General/Open Category is quashed and set aside.
2. Respondent nos. 1 & 2, in consultation with each
other, shall constitute a committee to verify experience
certificates furnished by respondent no. 3, and to decide
whether or not experience mentioned in each of these
certificates would be admissible in terms of clause 4.4 of
the advertisement dated 05.08.2020.
3. The expert who issued scrutiny report at page 152
shall not be part of the committee to be constituted for the
purpose.
4. Final result shall be declared after verification of
experience certificates of respondent no. 3 is carried out by
the committee and scrutiny report is prepared.
5. No order as to costs."
6. Feeling aggrieved with the direction at Clause no. 2 of the
operative part of the impugned order dated 25.03.2022, whereby a
direction has been given to respondent nos. 1 and 2 to form a
Committee to verify the experience certificates furnished by
respondent no. 3 in the light of Clause 4.4 of the advertisement dated
05.08.2020, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner.
5 wp-1947-22-final.odt
7. Pending the Writ Petition, as per direction of the MAT, a
Committee under the Chairmanship of Joint Secretary, Revenue and
Forest Department consisting of Senior Geologist, Geological
Department (Mining) and Joint Secretary, Maharashtra Public Service
Commission was constituted. The Committee submitted its report,
copy of which is tendered in the Court.
8. Shri P. S. Wathore, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioner vehemently submitted that the MAT ought not to have
granted direction to respondent no. 2 for forming the Committee.
According to him, one of the candidates Mr. Kadu, who had not
submitted experience certificate in the prescribed format published in
the advertisement has been disqualified, whereas respondent no. 3,
who also did not take care to give the experience certificate in the said
format has been held qualified, which is illegal, arbitrary and cannot
stand to the scrutiny of law. It is contended that scrutiny report of one
Mr. Gurav, who reached to finding that respondent no. 3 was ineligible
however by subsequent over-writing, respondent no. 3 was shown as
eligible. It is contended that the MAT, by directing respondent no. 2 to
constitute a Committee, committed serious error and allowed
respondent no. 2 to review its own findings. It is contended that once
the MAT set aside the order of appointment of respondent no. 3, the
consequence would be that next candidate in the order of merit i.e. the
6 wp-1947-22-final.odt
petitioner will be the eligible for appointment. Therefore, it is
submitted that the order dated 25.03.2022 of the MAT directing
respondent nos. 1 and 2 to constitute a Committee is not proper. It is
also contended that even as per the report of the Committee,
respondent no. 3 will not be eligible to be appointed on the post of
Joint Director, Directorate of Geology and Mining.
9. Shri Sunil Manohar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on
behalf of respondent no. 3 submitted that the Committee is already
constituted and the Committee has submitted its report wherein out of
three Members, two members found respondent no. 3 is having
sufficient experience for appointment on the post of Deputy Director
and they have recommended name of respondent no. 3 to be
appointed as Joint Director, Directorate of Geology and Mining.
According to him, in the wake of formation of the Committee and
submission of its report, the petition does not survive. There is no
fraud on behalf of respondent no. 3 while filling application form and
submitting necessary documents in the wake of the advertisement.
Since, the Committee verified the documents of respondent no. 3 and
found him eligible, the petitioner has no case. Hence, he prays for
dismissal of the petition.
7 wp-1947-22-final.odt
10. So far as the submission of counsel for the petitioner
regarding rejection of the application of one Mr. Kadoo on the ground
of not submitting experience certificate in proper format is concerned,
it appears that Mr. Kadoo also approached the MAT vide Original
Application No. 609/2021. Reply of respondent no. 2 herein in the
said Original Application shows that on scrutiny of experience
certificates of Mr. Kadoo, it could not be verified whether the nature of
work done by him was related to geology or mineral field work.
Further affidavit of respondent no. 2 herein in the said Original
Application shows that Mr. Kadoo was satisfied with the decision of the
respondent no. 2 to hold him not eligible for the interview on applying
shortlisting criteria. Thus, respondent no. 2 was justified in not
considering the candidature of Mr. Kadoo. The case of respondent no.
3 cannot be equated with Mr. Kadoo.
11. The main grievance of the petitioner is against the
directions given by the MAT to respondent nos. 1 and 2 to constitute a
Committee for verification of the experience certificates furnished by
respondent no. 3 and to decide whether or not the experience
mentioned in the certificates would be admissible in terms of Clause
no. 4.4 of the advertisement. We have gone through the impugned
order in Original Application No. 1015/2021. It appears that there
was report of one Mr. Gurav finding respondent no. 3 eligible. Though
8 wp-1947-22-final.odt
there was some scorings in the report of Mr. Gurav but, the fact
remains that one report was in favour of respondent no. 3 holding him
eligible. Just because there were scorings in the report, the MAT set
aside the order of appointment and found it necessary that these
experience certificates be re-verified by a Committee of Experts to be
appointed by respondent nos. 1 and 2. In these peculiar facts, we find
that the MAT has rightly given directions to respondent nos. 1 and 2 to
constitute Expert Committee to verify the experience certificates in
terms of Clause no. 4.4. of the advertisement.
12. Be that as it may, it is a matter record that pursuant to the
said direction by Government Resolution dated 18.04.2022, the State
Government constituted three Member Committee under the
Chairmanship of Joint Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai consisting of Member, Maharashtra Public Service
Commission and Geologist, Manganese Ore India Ltd. (MOIL), Nagpur
as its members. Now, the said Committee has submitted its report
after examining the certificates of experience of respondent no. 3.
What remains now for respondent no. 2 is to consider the report of the
Committee and to declare the result. In view of the circumstances
referred above, no interference is required in the order dated
25.03.2022 of the MAT.
9 wp-1947-22-final.odt
13. It is submitted on behalf of the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner that even as per the report, respondent no. 3 is not
eligible to be appointed on the post of Deputy Director since he has
worked on private institute which cannot be considered as an
experience. It is also submitted that if the interpretation of the
opinions of the individual Members of the Committee would lead to
conclusion that he does not possesses requisite qualifications in terms
of the advertisement therefore, the petitioner being second in the list
to be appointed as Deputy Director. Since the Committee has
submitted its report, the same is required to be considered by
respondent no. 2 for declaring the result. If the petitioner find himself
aggrieved by the result, the petitioner is free to challenge the
order/report in appropriate forum according to law.
14. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Rule
discharge. No costs.
(M. W. CHANDWANI, J.) (A. S. CHANDURKAR, J.)
RR Jaiswal
