Bombay High Court
Rekha D/O. Shankar Shinde vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, ... on 11 August, 2025
Author: M. S. Jawalkar
Bench: M. S. Jawalkar
2025:BHC-NAG:7904-DB
1/12 Judg.wp.5165.2024.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 5165 OF 2024
Rekha d/o Shankar Shinde,
Aged about 24 years,
Occupation-Educated Unemployment,
R/o. Sawa, Post-Bhandegaon, Tahasil and
District-Hingoli ... PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary, Department of Rural
Development and Panchayat Raj
Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. District Selection Committee,
Through its Chairman/the District Collector,
Washim, District Washim.
3. District Selection Committee,
Through its Member/the Chief Officer, Zilla
Parishad, Civil Lines, Washim, District
Washim.
4. District Selection Committee,
Through its Member Secretary/the Deputy
Chief Officer (General), Zilla Parishad, Civil
Lines, Washim, District Washim.
5. District Selection Committee,
Through its Member/the Deputy Chief
Officer (Panchayat), Zilla Parishad, Civil
Lines, Washim, District Washim.
6. Mangal d/o Mahadeo Godse,
Aged about 23 years,
2/12 Judg.wp.5165.2024.odt
Occupation : Service, R/o. Post : Ujni,
Tahasil : Ausa, District : Latur 413520,
Email : [email protected]
7. Nanda d/o Jagan Kale, ... RESPONDENTS
Aged about 22 years,
Occupation-Service,
R/o. Khambala, Post-Tahasil & District-
Hingoli 431513.
Email: [email protected].
Mr. V. B. Gawali, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. A. S. Fulzele, Addl. Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.1 & 2.
Mr. M. L. Vairagade, Advocate for Respondent No.3.
Mr. P. S. Kshirsagar, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 6 & 7.
CORAM : SMT. M. S. JAWALKAR AND
PRAVIN S. PATIL, JJ.
ARGUMENTS HEARD ON : JULY 14, 2025.
PRONOUNCED ON : AUGUST 11, 2025.
JUDGMENT [PER PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.]
. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the
parties, Petition is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission.
2. By this Petition, Petitioner claims her inclusion in selection list
against the post of Gramsevak (Contractual) from E.W.S. Women reservation
category by setting aside the selection of Respondent Nos.6 and 7 published
3/12 Judg.wp.5165.2024.odt
vide selection list dated 19/8/2023 by respondent nos.2 to 5 on the ground
that she has committed inadvertent mistake while applying the post by not
opting from the Women Reservation Category.
3. Brief facts of the Petition are as under :
On 5/8/2023 Respondent Nos.2 to 5 i.e. District Selection
Committee issued an advertisement to fill up the various posts of Group-C for
Zilla Parishad, Washim. As per this advertisement No.1/2023, the specific
instructions were given to the candidates that before applying for the post,
they should open the website and go through it thoroughly and if found some
objections, that objections will be satisfied on the helpline number given in the
advertisement. It is further stated in the terms and conditions of the
advertisement, particularly under clause - 3.13, that candidate should state his
name, social category, from which category he/she applying for the post, date
of birth, mobile number and email ID etc.. It is further made clear that if
Applicant failed to submit these details, Zilla Parishad, Washim would not be
responsible for their rejection of application.
4. It is further submitted that according to the advertisement, 16
posts were earmarked for Gramsevak (Contractual). Out of these 16 posts, as
4/12 Judg.wp.5165.2024.odt
per the reservation, five posts falls for Economically Weaker Section category.
Out of these 5 posts, 3 posts were reserved for EWS (General) category and
two posts falls in horizontal reservation i.e. woman reservation. This
categorisation was specifically published along with the advertisement
published by the District Selection Committee.
5. That in furtherance of the advertisement issued by the
Respondents, Petitioner submitted her online application dated 24/8/2023. In
front of the column of "category of candidate" she had specifically mentioned
as E.W.S. (Economically Weaker Section), then under the caption of 'applied
under which category,' she has mentioned, 'E.W.S.', however, under the
caption, 'Are you applying under women reservation?', she has opted 'No'. This
fact is clear from her application, which is placed on record as Annexure -
(Page 71).
6. That Petitioner accordingly participated in the recruitment
exercise undertaken by the Respondent Nos.2 to 5. The examination of the
candidates was conducted on 20/6/2024. Thereafter, Respondent Nos.2 and
3, on 26/7/2024 published provisional combined list of qualified candidates in
descending order of marks for the recruitment of the post of Gramsevak. In the
said list, from E.W.S. category, one Suresh Gajanan Surve obtained 148 marks
5/12 Judg.wp.5165.2024.odt
and one Dinesh Dnyaneshwar Singare obtained 148 marks and petitioner
secured/obtained 144 marks.
7. Likewise, from the category of candidates from E.W.S. Women
reservation category, on the basis of examination conducted on 20/6/2024,
Respondent No.6, who had applied from women reservation category secured
130 marks, and respondent no.7 secured 122 marks.
8. The Petitioner, after declaration of the provisional combined list,
neither objected nor raised any grievance that her candidature was not
considered from E.W.S. women reservation category. As such, the selection
committee proceeded further and on 19/8/2024 published the final selection
list of the candidates for the post of Gramsevak (Contractual) for 16 posts. As
per the said selection list, two persons namely, Suresh Gajanan Surve and
Dinesh Dnyaneshwar Shingare were shown to be appointed from E.W.S.
general category and Respondent Nos.6 and 7 were shown to be appointed
under horizontal reservation i.e. women reservation. And one post reserved
for Ex-Serviceman (EWS category) shown vacant. Petitioner's name is shown
in waiting list of EWS general category at Sr.No.1.
6/12 Judg.wp.5165.2024.odt
9. After declaration of the final selection list, Petitioner approached
to this Court by making a grievance that on 25/8/2023 while applying the post
of Gramsevak (Contractual) from E.W.S. category, inadvertently she has not
opted 'Yes' to the question, 'Are you applying under women reservation?'
Hence, considering the fact that Respondent Nos.6 and 7, obtained less marks
than the Petitioner, she should be declared as selected from the women
reservation category. Petitioner stated that she secured 144 marks, whereas
Respondent Nos.6 and 7 secured 130 and 122 marks respectively. Hence,
considering the merit of the Petitioner, selection of the Respondent Nos.6 and 7
be cancelled and Petitioner's name for the post of Gramsevak (Contractual) be
included in final select list of EWS-Women Reservation Category.
10. In response to the notices issued to the Respondents, they
appeared in the matter and categorically stated that under clauses - 3.13 and
3.18 of the instructions manual, it was made clear to every candidate applying
for the post that the candidate should diligently go through the application
form and rightly opt for the relevant category and failure to do so will deprive
them from considering their candidature. However, in spite of these specific
directions, Petitioner failed to apply from the specific category, and therefore,
now she cannot raise grievance for her non-selection. It is further pointed out
7/12 Judg.wp.5165.2024.odt
that if there was mistake on the part of Petitioner while applying for the post,
she could have raised her grievance immediately after submitting her
application, but it is clear from the record that till final selection of the
candidate, she has never raised her grievance before any of the authority.
Hence, considering the conduct of the Petitioner, it is clear that she is only
trying to take a chance only because Respondent Nos.6 and 7 secured less
marks from woman reservation of E.W.S. category than the Petitioner. Hence,
considering the overall factual position, the Petitioner did not approach with
clean hands, and therefore, Petition deserves to be dismissed.
11. We have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel
for both sides, perused the record as well as the Judgments relied upon by the
parties.
12. It is undisputed fact that while issuing advertisement, the
instructions given to the candidates are very specific, particularly clauses - 3.1,
3.2, 3.4 and 3.13 of instructions manual. Hence, failure on the part of
Petitioner to apply specifically from the women reservation i.e. horizontal
reservation take away her right to get appointment from that category.
Hence, according to us, prima facie we do not find any merit in the submission
of the Petitioner.
8/12 Judg.wp.5165.2024.odt
13. Bare perusal of the application form of the Petitioner clearly
demonstrate the fact that she has categorically denied the option, 'Are you
applying under women reservation?' by stating 'No' in her application
therefore subsequently she cannot be permitted to change her category merely
because candidates from that category secured less marks than her. Hence,
we do not find any merit in the submission of the Petitioner.
14. It is pertinent to note that in the present Petition, the application
was for the post submitted by the Petitioner on 25/8/2023, thereafter
examination was conducted on 20/6/2024 and the provisional list of the
candidates qualified for the post on the basis of marks obtained by them in the
examination was published on 26/7/2024. During this period, Petitioner never
raised her grievance to either of the Authorities stating that there was any
mistake on her part while applying for the post. What we found that even after
declaration of the provisional combined list, till declaration of the final
selection list, no objection was raised by the Petitioner. Hence, it can be
concluded that Petitioner was aware that as she has not applied from E.W.S.
Women reservation category, she has no right over the post, and therefore, she
has not raised any objection till the conclusion of the recruitment exercise.
9/12 Judg.wp.5165.2024.odt
15. That from the record what it is revealed that the Petitioner has
secured 144 marks, whereas the Respondent Nos.6 and 7, who had applied
from E.W.S. Women reservation category has secured 130 and 122 marks
respectively. Thereafter, Petitioner realised that as Respondent Nos.6 and 7
secured less marks than her, she can claim her appointment from E.W.S.
Women reservation category. Accordingly, first time before this Court she
raised a grievance that her candidature should have been considered from
Women Reservation as due to inadvertent mistake she has not opted 'Yes' to
the question, 'Are you applying under women reservation?', we are not
impressed with this submission of petitioner, as same is not permissible as per
settled principles of law.
16. The learned Counsel appearing for Respondent has rightly relied
upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of
Maharashtra & Anr. V/s Gayabai Gorakh Pokale & Ors. in Writ Petition No.
10085 of 2016, dated 26/4/2018, wherein in paragraph No.23 this Court has
observed as under :
"23. For the forgoing reasons when the applicant did not submit
non-creamy layer certificate with the application form and did not
claim benefit of 30% reservation available for women category
mentioning the said fact in column Nos.11 and 12 of the application
10/12 Judg.wp.5165.2024.odt
form, her request to give her benefit of 30% reservation for women
category, rejected by respondent Collector by letter dated
17.03.2017 cannot be said to be illegal."
17. The learned Counsel for Respondents further relied upon the
Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of A. P. Public Service
Commission V/s Koneti Venkateswarulu and Others1, wherein the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has observed as under :
"At no point of time did the first respondent inform the appellant
Commission that there was a bona fide mistake by him in filling up
the application form, or that there was inadvertence on his part in
doing so. It is only when the appellant Commission discovered by
itself that there was suppressio veri and suggestio falsi on the part of
the first respondent in the application that the respondent came
forward with an excuse that it was due to inadvertence. The
explanation in such circumstances is unacceptable and does not
deserve any public employment."
18. It is further relied upon the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court
in State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. V/s G. Hemalathaa & Anr. in Civil Appeal No.
6669 of 2019, wherein in paragraph No.7, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
observed as under :
"7. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions
made by the learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent. The
instructions issued by the Commission are mandatory, having the
1 (2005) 7 Supreme Court Cases 177
11/12 Judg.wp.5165.2024.odt
force of law and they have to be strictly complied with. Strict
adherence to the terms and conditions of the instructions is of
paramount importance. The High Court in exercise of powers under
Article 226 of the Constitution cannot modify/relax the instructions
issued by the Commission."
19. That from the abovesaid law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India, it is necessary for the candidate to adhere to the terms and
conditions of the instructions in the advertisement and same is of paramount
importance. The Petitioner cannot claim benefit after completion of the
recruitment exercise by stating that he/she inadvertently not opted from
particular category.
20. In the present Petition, it is admitted fact that Petitioner did not
opt from the E.W.S. Women reservation category. Furthermore, from the date
of submitting her application dated 25/8/2023 till the date of selection of
candidate i.e. 19/8/2024, Petitioner no where raised her grievance stating that
there was inadvertent mistake on her part. Hence, considering the entire
factual aspect, we are of the opinion that Petitioner, after completion of the
recruitment exercise, cannot be allowed to change her category and take
benefit of her caste or her gender in the recruitment exercise.
12/12 Judg.wp.5165.2024.odt
21. Accordingly, we find no merit in the submission of the Petitioner,
hence Petition is dismissed.
22. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.
[PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.] [SMT. M. S. JAWALKAR, J.]
Lateron :
23. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that interim order is in
operation in the matter dated 3rd September, 2024 till today may be extended
for a period of six weeks to approach to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
However, the same is strongly opposed by the respondents.
24. Considering our findings recorded in the matter and recruitment
exercise is already stalled, the period of four weeks is granted to approach to
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
[PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.] [SMT. M. S. JAWALKAR, J.]
vijaya
Signed by: A.S. GULANDE
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 12/08/2025 18:58:11
