Bombay High Court
Mrs. Meena Lalit Baghele vs The State Of Maharashtra, Home ... on 1 October, 2024
Author: Bharati Dangre
Bench: Bharati Dangre
2024:BHC-NAG:11376-DB
1 wp5819.24.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 5819 OF 2024
Mrs. Meena Lalit Baghele,
Age 35 years, Occupation - Police Patil,
Resident of Kinhi, Post - Dasgaon,
Tahsil and District Gondia. .... PETITIONER
VERSUS
1) The State of Maharashtra,
Home Department, through Secretary,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 440032.
2) Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-
Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Gondia,
Tahsil and District Gondia.
3) Mrs. Rekha Sandip Channe,
Age about 34 years, Occupation - Nil,
Resident of Kinhi, Post - Dasgaon,
Tahsil and District Gondia. .... RESPONDENTS
______________________________________________________________
Mr. B.M. Kharkate, Counsel for the petitioner,
Mr. J.Y. Ghurde, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 and 2,
Mr. I.N. Choudhari, Counsel for respondent No.3.
______________________________________________________________
CORAM : BHARATI DANGRE &
ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.
DATE : 1st OCTOBER, 2024
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : Abhay J. Mantri, J.)
Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally, by
the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
2 wp5819.24.odt
2. The petitioner is dissatisfied with the judgment and order
dated 22-08-2024 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal
(for short, "the Tribunal") in Original Application No.1131/2023,
thereby allowing the application filed by respondent No.3 and quashing
and setting aside, the order dated 20-10-2023 passed by respondent
No.2, holding the respondent No.3 to be ineligible for being appointed
on the post of Police Patil.
3. Succinctly, the facts of the case are as under :
(a) The petitioner-original non-applicant No.3 is a resident of
Kinhi and was a Member of the Gram-Panchayat.
(b) On 22-08-2023, respondent No.2 issued a proclamation to
fill up the post of Police Patil at village Kinhi, District Gondia.
In response to the proclamation, the petitioner, respondent No.3,
and others had applied for the post of Police Patil. In the examination,
out of 100 marks, the petitioner and respondent No.3 secured 68.5 and
64.8 marks, respectively.
(c) Respondent No.3 raised the objection before respondent
No.2, alleging that the petitioner was a Member of the Gram-
Panchayat, Kinhi, and she has not tendered her resignation and has
suppressed the said fact and hence she is not entitled for an
appointment to the post of the Police Patil. However, respondent No.2
3 wp5819.24.odt
authority has not considered the objection and issued an appointment
order on 20-10-2023, thereby appointing the petitioner as Police Patil
of village Kinhi.
Being aggrieved by the said order, respondent No.3 has
approached the Tribunal by filing the Original Application.
(d) The Tribunal, considering the material before it, has
quashed and set aside the appointment order dated 20-10-2023 issued
in favour of the petitioner, as Police Patil and directed respondent No.2
to fill up the post in accordance with the law.
4. Mr. B.M. Kharkate, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has
vehemently argued that the learned Tribunal had failed to consider the
fact that the petitioner had already submitted her resignation before
the competent authority on 03-10-2023 and the same was accepted on
20-10-2023 and thereafter, the appointment order was issued in her
favour. As such, he submit that the learned Tribunal has erred in
holding that the petitioner is not entitled to the post of Police Patil.
Secondly, he canvassed that the Tribunal failed to consider
that mere possession of a licence by the petitioner does not mean that
she was running the business, as the same was not in operation.
However, the learned Tribunal ignored said fact, and therefore,
the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal are not sustainable in the
eyes of the law.
4 wp5819.24.odt
Thirdly, he has contended that the petitioner had scored
more marks than respondent No.3; therefore, the petitioner is eligible
for the appointment as Police Patil, and respondent No.3 has no locus
to challenge her appointment and he urged to set aside the impugned
order.
5. Mr. Kharkate, the learned counsel, has drawn support from
the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
Sunita w/o Navnath Gudhage v. District Collector, Ahmednagar and others
reported in 2015(6) Mh.L.J. 393 and submitted that in view of the
dictum laid down in the said case, the petitioner is entitled to be
appointed as Police Patil and he urged to allow the writ petition.
Per contra, Mr I.N. Choudhari, learned Counsel for
respondent No.3, resisted the petition on two counts: first, the
petitioner possesses the licence of Krushi Seva Kendra to run the
business, and second, at the time of appointment, she was a Member of
the Gram-Panchayat. Therefore, according to him, the petitioner was
not eligible to be appointed as a Police Patil. However, respondent No.2
has not considered those documents and issued the appointment order.
5 wp5819.24.odt
The learned Tribunal has therefore rightly considered the
same and reversed the said order, thereby quashing and setting aside
the appointment order dated 20-10-2023.
6. Mr. J.Y. Ghurde, learned Assistant Government Pleader for
respondent Nos.1 and 2, has submitted that the petitioner had
tendered her resignation on 03-10-2023 and the scrutiny of the
documents was held on 05-10-2023. Therefore, the issuance of the
appointment order by respondent No.2 is just and proper. He further
canvassed that out of 100 marks, the petitioner scored 68.5 marks and
respondent No.3 scored 64.8 marks, respectively; therefore, the
petitioner was eligible and entitled to be appointed to the post of Police
Patil as per merit. He has supported the order passed by respondent
No.2.
7. We have appreciated the rival contentions raised and
perused the record.
8. At the outset, it seems that the petitioner and respondent
No.3 both possessed the required educational qualifications, for the
post of Police Patil. It is undisputed that out of 100 marks, the
petitioner scored 68.5 marks, and respondent No.3 scored 64.8 marks.
6 wp5819.24.odt
It is undisputed that the petitioner was a member of the Gram-
Panchayat.
It has emerged from the record, that after publishing the
merit list on 23-09-2023, on 03-10-2023, the petitioner tendered her
resignation to the Gram-Panchayat. Pursuant to the resignation, vide
notice dated 12-10-2023, a Special Meeting of the Gram-Panchayat was
called on 20-10-2023, and in the meeting, the resignation was
accepted. It is on the same day, the respondent No.2 issued the
appointment order in favour of the petitioner, as a Police Patil.
9. While considering the rival claims, it would be proper to
mention Clause No.6 of the proclamation, which reads thus :
"6- vtZnkjkaps dks.kR;kgh jktfd; i{kk'kh laca/k ulkok- vtZnkj gk
use.kqdhP;k xkoh LFkkfud Lo#ikpk m|ksx dj.kkjk ulkok- R;kpizek.ks
brj fBdk.kh laiw.kZosG uksdjh ok /kank dj.kkjk ulkok- R;kpizek.ks
xzkeiapk;r lnL; ulkok- rlsp [kktxh fdaok fueljdkjh laLFkspk lnL;
ulkok] vFkok iq.kZosG uksdjh dj.kkjk ulkkok ;kckcrps #i;s 100@& P;k
LVWEi isijojhy izfrKki=] dkxni= iMrkG.khP;k osGh lknj dj.ks
vko';d jkghy-"
A bare perusal of the above clause reveals that the
candidate has to produce all the documents before the Authority at the
time of verification of the documents.
10. It is evident that on 03-10-2023, the petitioner tendered
resignation as a Member of the Gram-Panchayat and on 05-10-2023,
the documents were verified. At that time, she tendered a copy of the
7 wp5819.24.odt
resignation letter before the authority and after considering the same,
respondent No.2 authority relied on the fact, that the petitioner had
resigned from Membership of the Gram-Panchayat.
11. The second objection about the petitioner possessing the
licence of the Krushi Seva Kendra, in that regard, the petitioner has
categorically stated that though the licence was issued in her name, she
has not operated any business pursuant to the said licence. She also
produced a certificate dated 23-03-2024 issued by the Sarpanch in that
regard.
On the contrary, respondent No.3 has failed to produce any
document or material demonstrating that the petitioner was doing
business on the basis of the licence.
Thus, respondent No.2 rightly declined the objection
raised by respondent No.3 and issued appointment order in favour of
the petitioner.
12. The learned Tribunal, while dealing with the said
objections, has observed that the licence was issued in the name of the
petitioner, showing her as a proprietor and, therefore, disbelieved the
certificate issued by the Sarpanch in that regard. Secondly, on relying
on the observations made in the O.A. Nos.513/2017 and 941/2017
8 wp5819.24.odt
dated 15-12-2022 and 19-11-2019, the learned Tribunal has allowed
the application and set aside the appointment order issued in favour
of the petitioner as a Police Patil.
The learned Tribunal has not taken into consideration the
tendering of the resignation by the petitioner on 03-10-2023, it has
failed to appreciate the certificate issued by the Sarpanch, regarding
not carrying out any business by the petitioner.
On the contrary, the learned Tribunal has misinterpreted
clause 6 of the proclamation and erred in allowing the application.
Based on such erroneous findings, the impugned order
cannot be sustained in the eyes of the law and call for interference.
13. In the light of the above discussion, in our view, the
learned Tribunal has erred in allowing the original application. That
being so, in our view, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and
set aside by restoring the order passed by respondent No.2, appointing
the petitioner as Police Patil of village Kinhi.
14. In the aforesaid background, we deem it appropriate to
allow the petition by setting aside the order passed by the Maharashtra
Administrative Tribunal dated 22-08-2024 in O.A. No.1131/2023.
9 wp5819.24.odt
As a consequence, the petitioner stand restored to the post of
"Police Patil" of village Kinhi, Tq. and District Gondia.
(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) (BHARATI DANGRE, J.)
adgokar
Signed by: MR. P.M. ADGOKAR
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 11/10/2024 18:11:43
