Bombay High Court
Shital Gurunath Kore vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 18 January, 2024
Author: Vibha Kankanwadi
Bench: Vibha Kankanwadi
2024:BHC-AUG:2117-DB
{1}
wp 8077.21 R.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 8077 OF 2021
Shital Gurunath Kore,
Age 25 years, Occ. Student,
R/o. At Post Her, Tq. Udgir,
Dist. Latur. ...Petitioner
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through its Principal Secretary,
Education and Sport Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai -32.
2. The President,
Maharashtra State Secondary
and Higher Secondary Examination
Board, Pune.
3. The Secretary,
Maharashtra State Secondary and
Higher Secondary Examination
Board, Pune.
.. Respondents.
Mr. R.D. Biradar, Advocate for petitioner,
Mr. Yugant R. Marlapalle, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3
Mr. N.S. Tekale, AGP for respondent No.1.
CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI
& S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, JJ.
DATE : 18th JANUARY, 2024.
Judgment (per S. G. Chapalgaonkar, J.) :-
{2}
wp 8077.21 R.odt
1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
by consent of learned advocate for the parties.
2. The petitioner approaches this court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India thereby challenging the validity of clause Nos. 6,7
and 8 of the Govt. Resolution dated 31.5.2021, consequently, raises
challenge to the final selection list, dated 12.7.2021 issued by the
respondent No.1 and further seeks direction to issue appointment order
in favour of the petitioner for the post of `Junior Clerk' advertised on
10.9.2019 by the respondent No.3 i.e. Maharashtra State Secondary and
Higher Secondary Education Department.
3. Mr. Biradar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the respondent No.3 had published an advertisement for recruitment of
266 posts of Jr. Clerk. Total 27 posts were earmarked for EWS
(Economically Weaker Section category) and 7 posts were further
earmarked for EWS (Female). The petitioner in response to the
advertisement submitted online application and also appeared for the
examination. She secured 137 marks. The cut off marks for EWS was
126. Accordingly, petitioner's name figured at Sr. No. 579 in the merit
list. Meanwhile, the Government Resolution dated 31.5.2021 came to be
issued by which candidates belonging to SEBC (Socially and
Economically Backward Class category) were permitted to be included
and considered against seats earmarked for EWS category during
recruitment process undertaken by the State of Maharashtra and body
corporates under its control.
4. Mr. Biradar, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit
that because of the inclusion of SEBC candidates in EWS quota, the
{3}
wp 8077.21 R.odt
petitioner lost her right of appointment. The Government Resolution by
which such inclusion was permitted was arbitrary and illegal.
Consequently, this Court in Writ Petition No. 2663 of 2021 (at Principal
Seat) vide order dated 29.7.2022 declared that the impugned clauses in
Government Resolution were invalid. The recruitment process initiated
for the purpose of appoitment of EWS category in furtherance of the
advertisements which were subject matter of respective writ petitions and
Govt. Resolutions will not affect the selection process initiated pursuant
to the publishing such advertisement. It is further declared that the
action on the part of the respondents in applying the Government
Resolution retrospectively to the selection process is illegal and bad in
law and consequntial directions issued by the MSEDCL in that case are
held to be illegal and bad in law. He would, therefore, submit that the
decision of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 thereby including the SEBC
category candidates in EWS category is illegal and the petitioner would
be entitled for appointment on the post of her original merit by excluding
the candidates from SEBC category considered under the EWS quota. He
placed reliance on the order of this court dated 29.7.2022 in a group of
writ petitions i.e. W.P. No. 2663 of 2021 (Vikas Balwant Alase and others
Vs. Union of India through Secretary and others) with connected writ
petitions.
5. Mr. Marlapalle, learned advocate for respondent Nos. 2 and
3 would submit that the petition itself is based on misconception. He
would submit that the petitioner is relying upon the cut off marks
declared for verification of documents. The petitioner was, therefore,
called upon for verification of documents on the basis of her merit
position. However, the actual merit list for EWS (Female) would show
that the cut off for EWS (Female) was 141 marks. The petitioner was
{4}
wp 8077.21 R.odt
much below the final cut off for EWS (Female). He would point out that
even after excluding the SEBC candidates from EWS (Female) category,
the petitioner could not secure merit position for appointment on the
post of Junior Clerk.
6. We have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of
respective parties. We have perused the record pressed into service
alongwith the writ petition and the reply.
7. Apparently, the petitioner had responded to the
advertisement issued by the respondent No.3 thereby inviting
applications from the eligible candidates for recruitment on the post of
Junior Clerk. 27 posts were reserved for EWS category, out of that, 8
posts were earmarked for EWS (Female). The petitioner offered her
candidature from EWS (Female) category. The petitioner appeared for
the written examination and secured 137 marks. Initially, respondent
No.3 had prepared list of candidates to be called for verification of
documents and prescribed the cut off marks details for each category.
The cut off for EWS (Female) is shown to be 126 marks. Accordingly the
petitioner was called for verification of documents.
8. It appears that petitioner consideres the call for verification
of documents as her selection. The final merit list would shows that cut
off for EWS (Female) is 141 marks in the select list. Admittedly, the
petitioner could not achieve the merit position as per the said cut off.
9. The first challenge of the petitioner is to validity of certain
clauses of the Government Resolution dated 31.5.2021 which was subject
matter of challenge in W.P. No. 2663 0f 2021 in the case of Vikas Balwant
Alase (supra) with other writ petitions. This Court, vide judgment dated
{5}
wp 8077.21 R.odt
29.7.2022 upheld the contentions of the petitioners that the Govt.
Resoution cannot be given retrospective effect to include SEBC
candidates in EWS quota in respect of recruitment process which was
already initiated prior to the publication of Govt. Resolution. Apparently,
the first contention of the petitioner that the Govt. Resolution shall not
apply retrosectively in subject recruitment process has to be accepted in
view of the specific judgment of this court in the case of Vikas Alase
(supra).
10. At this stage, we called upon Mr. Marlapalle, learned counsel
appearing for respondent No.2 to demonstrate whether the position of
the petitioner would be altered if SEBC candidates who were included in
EWS (Women) category are removed from the merit list. It is brought to
our notice that even after the candidates from SEBC category are
removed from the list, the petitioner who has secured 137 marks stands
at Sr. No. 9. As only 7 posts are available for EWS (Female), the
petitioner does not qualify in the order of merit as the cut off marks for
Verification of documents for EWS (Female) category are 138. The
learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the aforesaid
contention.
11. In that view of the matter, we do not find merit in the
petition. The writ petition therefore stands dismissed. Rule is discharged.
No costs.
[S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J]
grt/-
Signed by: G R TOKE
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 01/02/2024 11:25:56
