Bombay High Court
Rupchand S/O. Mahadeo Itwale And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra, Rural ... on 17 January, 2025
Author: Avinash G. Gharote
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote
2025:BHC-NAG:558-DB
1 17.WP.4505-2024. JUDGMENT.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 4505 OF 2024
1. Rupchand S/o Mahadeo Itwale
Aged about 40 Years, Occ: Service,
(Track Maintainer Central Railway),
R/o. At Vihirgaon, Post Sangadi
Tah. Sakoli, District Bhandara.
(M):9923149799.
2. Bandu S/o Ramdhan Chavhan
Aged about 30 Years, Occ: Nil,
R/o. Ward No.4, Sarangapur,
P.O. Jiwati, Dist. Chandrapur-08.
(M): 9850579750. PETITIONERS
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Rural Development Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,
Through its Secretary.
2. The State of Maharashtra
General Administration Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,
Through its Secretary.
3. Zilla Parishad, Gadchiroli
Through its Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Gadchiroli. RESPONDENTS
2 17.WP.4505-2024. JUDGMENT.odt
-----------------------------------------------
Mr. P.R. Sharma, Advocate h/f Mr. V.P. Marpakwar, Advocate for
the Petitioners.
Mr. Sachin Narale, AGP for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2/State.
Mr. D.V. Mahajan, Advocate for the Respondent No.3.
-----------------------------------------------
CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE AND
ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.
DATED : 17th JANUARY, 2025
ORAL JUDGMENT :- (PER : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)
Heard.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
by the consent of the learned Counsels appearing for the rival
parties.
3. The Petition questions the list published by the
Respondent No.3 of ineligible candidates dated 27.06.2024
(page 29), by which the Petitioners have been held to be
ineligible to be appointed as Civil Draftsman by the Respondent
No.3 in pursuance to the advertisement No.01/2023 (page 14),
on the ground that the qualification of the Petitioners (page 44
3 17.WP.4505-2024. JUDGMENT.odt
and 46), do not satisfy the requirement of clause 4(iii)
Appendix VI under Rule 5 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads
District Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1967 (hereinafter to be
referred as the "Rules of 1967" for short).
4. Mr. Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for the
Petitioners, relies upon the Government Resolution dated
28.09.2012 (page 32) and the Appendix-A annexed thereto
which indicates, that the course of C.C. in Architect Draftsman
and C.C. in Draftsman Civil has been held to be equivalent to
Draftsman Civil. He therefore submits, that when the State has
granted equivalence to the above said courses, the rejection of
the candidature of the Petitioners on this ground is not
sustainable.
5. Mr. Mahajan, learned Counsel for the Respondent
No.3, submits that what is required in terms of the Rule is a
qualification of a Civil Draftsman, and therefore, since this has
not been satisfied by the Petitioners, the rejection of their
candidature was clearly justified. He further submits, that the
Rule would always prevail upon the Circular, and therefore,
4 17.WP.4505-2024. JUDGMENT.odt
when the Rule requires a Civil Draftsman as the basic
qualification, the Circular would not come to the benefit of the
Petitioners. In support of this, he places reliance upon Ashok
Ram Parhad and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others,
2023 SCC OnLine SC 265.
6. Mr. Narale, learned AGP for the Respondent Nos.1
and 2/State, supports the contention of Mr. Mahajan, learned
Counsel for the Respondent No.3.
7. For the purpose of the present Petition Rule 10-A(3)
being material, is reproduced as under:
"10-A(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in
these rules, whenever any Class III and Class IV posts in
any District Services are to be filled from amongst the
Panchayat Servants the upper age limits prescribed for
appointment to the posts in the District Services under the
relevant recruitment rules shall be relaxable upto forty-five
years of age in respect of such Panchayat Servants :
Provided that the Panchayat Servant shall be
appointed subject to the educational qualification,
experience, etc. required to be possessed by candidate for
and methods of appointment to the posts in the District
Services and posts thereunder as specified in Appendices I
to XIII."
5 17.WP.4505-2024. JUDGMENT.odt
8. Appendix VI clause 4 sub clause (iii), which
prescribes the qualification of candidates for and methods of
appointments to the posts included in the District Technical
Service (Class III) (Engineering) and Districts Service (Class III)
(Subordinate Engineering), as prescribed under Rule 5 of the
Rules of 1967 for the post of Junior Draftsman, read as under:
"4(iii) Junior Draftsman:
(1) Appointment shall be made either-
(a) by promotion from amongst suitable Tracers, who have
completed continuous service of not less than three years on
that post;
OR
(b) by nomination from amongst candidates who-
(i) unless already in the service of the Zilla Parishad, are
not more than 25 years of age;
(ii) have passed SSC Examination or possess an equivalent
qualification; and
(iii) have successfully completed a course of Civil
Draftsman recognised by the State Government.
(2) The ratio of appointment by promotion and nomination
shall be 3:1."
9. What is necessary to note, is that clause 4(iii)(1)(b)
(iii) which prescribes the qualification for the post of Junior
Draftsman, indicates that a person should have successfully
6 17.WP.4505-2024. JUDGMENT.odt
completed a course of Civil Draftsman recognized by the State
Government. This would naturally indicate, that such
recognition, has to be prescribed by the State, which can be by
way of Circular or Resolution.
10. In the instant matter, by the Government Resolution
dated 28.09.2012 (page 34), the equivalence has been
prescribed, which is as under:
'kklu fu.kZ; Øekd-Ogkvklk-2012@591@iz-Ø-245¼c½@O;f'k&4] fnukad 28 lIVsacj] 2012
lkscrps ifjf'k"V v
egkjk"Vª jkT; O;olk; f'k{k.k ijh{kk eaMG ;kapsekQZr jkcfo.;kr ;s.kkjs 01 o"kZ o 2 o"kZ dkyko/khP;k
vH;klØekauk vkS|ksfxd izf'k{k.k laLFkkaekQZr jkcfo.;kr ;s.kk&;k vH;klØeka'kh i;kZ;h 'kS{kf.kd vgZrk fuf'pr
dj.;kl ekU;rk fnysY;k vH;klØekaph ;knh-
v- vkS|ksfxd izf'k{k.k laLFkk O;olk; f'k{k.k ijh{kk eaMGkrhy led{k vH;klØe
Ø-
O;olk; vH;klØe dkyko/kh 'kS{kf.kd v- O;olk; vH;klØe dkyko/kh 'kS{kf.kd
vgZrk Ø- vgZrk
4 MªkW¶Vleu flfOgy 2 o"kZ ,l-,l-lh 1½ lh-lh-bu vkfdZVsDV MªkW¶Vleu 2 o"kZ ,l-,l-lh
2½ lh-lh-bu MªkW¶Vleu flfOgy 2 o"kZ
11. This would clearly indicate that person who has
completed the course of C.C. in Architect Draftsman or C.C. in
Draftsman Civil, is entitled to be considered for the purpose of
recruitment as a Civil Draftsman.
7 17.WP.4505-2024. JUDGMENT.odt
12. The certificates which have been filed by the
Petitioners at page 44 and 46, indicate that they have indeed
done such courses conducted by the Maharashtra State Board of
Vocational Examinations, on account of which, since it has been
declared an equivalent qualification in terms of the Government
Resolution dated 28.09.2012, the rejection of the candidature of
the Petitioners cannot be countenanced.
13. The reliance placed by Mr. Mahajan, learned
Counsel for the Respondent No.3, upon Ashok Ram Parhad
(supra) is of no assistance, for the reason that in the present
matter, the Appendix itself grants authority to the State to
prescribe equivalence as is indicated in the language quoted
above.
14. In that view of the matter, the Petition is allowed.
15. The list of rejected candidates dated 27.06.2024
(page 29), insofar as the present Petitioners are concerned, is
hereby quashed and set aside and it is held that the Petitioners
are entitled to be considered for the post of Civil Draftsman.
8 17.WP.4505-2024. JUDGMENT.odt
16. The Respondent No.3, is therefore directed to take
appropriate steps in this regard as early as possible and in any
case within a period of four weeks from today.
17. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No costs.
18. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of
accordingly.
(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) (AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)
S.D.Bhimte
Signed by: Mr.S.D.Bhimte
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 20/01/2025 14:53:11
