Bombay High Court
Pooja Suryabhan Tandale vs Brihan Mumbai Municipal Corporation on 21 March, 2025
Author: M. S. Karnik
Bench: M. S. Karnik
2025:BHC-OS:4669-DB
7-WP-1206-2024(FCJ).odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.1206 OF 2024
Pooja Suryabhan Tandale
Age : 32, Occ. : Household
R/o at Wanjarwadi, Tal. Beed
Dist.: Beed, Maharashtra ....Petitioner
versus
1. Brihan Mumbai Municipal Corporation,
Through, Executive Health Officer,
F/South Division Office Building,
Room No. 49, Third Floor,
Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marg,
Parel, Mumbai-400012.
2. State of Maharashtra,
Through Public Health Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai ....Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.1459 OF 2024
Ushabai Santaram Dudhe
Age: 35, Occu.: Household
R/o at Mu Wanjola Tq. Sillod,
Wanjola, Dist. Aurangabad. ....Petitioner
versus
1. Brihan Mumbai Municipal Corporation
Through, Executive Health Officer,
Public Health Department,
Kartikeya 1 of 9
::: Uploaded on - 24/03/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2025 08:38:43 :::
7-WP-1206-2024(FCJ).odt
F/South Division Office Building,
Room No.49, Third Floor,
Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marg,
Parel, Mumbai-400012.
2. State of Maharashtra,
Through Public Health Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai ....Respondents
Mr. Abhijeet Khade i/by Mr. Satyajeet P. Dighe, Advocate for the
Petitioner.
Ms. Shilpa Redkar i/by Mr. Shivprasad Borade, Advocate for
Respondent No.1-BMC.
Ms. Jayamala Ostwal, Addl. G.P., for Respondents-State in
WP/1459/2024.
CORAM : M. S. KARNIK &
&
ASHWIN D. BHOBE, JJ.
DATE : 21st MARCH , 2025
JUGEMENT (PER ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.) :-
1. Heard. Mr. Abhijeet Khade, learned Counsel for the
Petitioner, Ms. Shilpa Redkar, learned Counsel for the Respondent
No.1-BMC and Ms. Jayamala Ostwal, Addl. G.P., for Respondents-
State.
2. Learned Counsel for the parties state that the facts, issues
and challenges involved in Writ Petition Nos.1206 of 2024 and 1459
Kartikeya 2 of 9
7-WP-1206-2024(FCJ).odt
of 2024 are identical. In view of the same, by consent, both these
Writ Petitions are heard together and disposed of by this common
judgment.
3. For the sake of convenience, facts in Writ Petition
No.1206 of 2024 are referred and taken into account for adjudication
of both the petitions.
4. By the present petition, the Petitioner has sought for the
following substantial relief :
"a. By issuing Writ of Mandamus, or any other
appropriate Writ, order of direction in nature of the
Writ, the Petitioner be added in the list dated
12.07.2023 published by Respondent No 1 and
further Petitioner be granted appointment to the post
of Staff Nurse as per advertisement dated 27.02.2023
issued by Respondent No. 1 for the post of Staff
Nurse."
5. Factual Matrix:
(a) Respondent No.1 issued advertisement dated 27.02.2023
inviting applications from eligible candidates for the post of 'Staff
Nurse' (said advertisement for short). Eligibility criteria and the
conditions were notified in the said advertisement.
(b) Respondent No.1 published the list of selected candidates
dated 12.07.2023. Name of the Petitioner was not reflected in the
said list.
Kartikeya 3 of 9
7-WP-1206-2024(FCJ).odt
(c) Petitioner vide application dated 31.07.2023, applied to the
Respondent No.1, seeking reasons for exclusion of her name in the
said list dated 12.07.2023.
(d) By e-mail dated 10.08.2023, the Respondent No.1
communicated the reasons for the non-inclusion of the Petitioner in
the selection list. Reasons given in the e-mail dated 10.08.2023, for
non-inclusion of the Petitioner in the said selection list dated
12.07.2023 are as follows :
"1. If the candidate has passed the first/second/ third
year of nursing course in second attempt. The final
percentage will be calculated by deducting 10 marks
from the total marks obtained in the year.
2. Also, if the candidate has passed first/ second/ third
year of the nursing course in third attempt then the final
percentage will be calculated by subtracting 20 marks
from the total marks obtained in the respective year.
3. Candidates who have passed first/second/third year
of the nursing course in more than three attempts for
recruitment will be declared ineligible.
As per the Order of the Hon'ble High Court, we are
informing to Smt. Pooja Suryabhan Tandale that she
have passed the first year of Nursing course in 4th
attempt. Therefore, she is not included in the
provisional notification list for the above reasons."
Submissions:-
6. Mr. Abhijeet Khade, learned Counsel for the Petitioner
submits that the Petitioner had cleared the Nursing Course within the
Kartikeya 4 of 9
7-WP-1206-2024(FCJ).odt
stipulated time. According to him the attempts taken for clearing the
semesters would not attract Clause (इ) (3) [referred to as clause c(3)]
of the said advertisement. He submits that the Petitioner has cleared
the entire Nursing Course within three attempts. He submit that the
Respondent No.1 on misinterpretation of the said advertisement has
disqualified the Petitioner. According to him the true and proper
interpretation of clause c(3) of the said advertisement is as urged in
ground "J" at page 6A of the memo of petition, which reads as
follows:
" It to be held and seen that the said advertisement
requires to clear the year within three years and not
the semester. Therefore, the reason given by
Respondent No.1 for non-inclusion of the name of the
Petitioner in selection list is arbitrary and illegal". He
submits that the Respondent No.1 has acted illegally
and therefore, prays that the petition be allowed."
7. Ms. Shilpa Redkar, learned Counsel for the Respondent
No.1, on the other hand, submits that candidates who had attempted
the first, second or third year of the Nursing Course more than three
times would be disqualified in terms of the said advertisement . By
placing reliance on the application dated 15.03.2023 submitted by
the Petitioner and more particularly, clause 7(b) at page no. 30 of the
petition paper-book, she submits that the Petitioner had conveniently
Kartikeya 5 of 9
7-WP-1206-2024(FCJ).odt
left the "attempt's column" in respect of the first year of Nursing
Course blank, thereby avoiding to disclose the number of attempts
the Petitioner took to clear the first year of the Nursing Course. She
submits as per the records, the Petitioner had passed the first year of
Nursing Course in four attempts. Thus, according to her, the
Petitioner stood disqualified and consequently, was excluded in the
list of the selected candidates dated 12.07.2023. She submits that the
Respondent No.1 has acted in terms of the advertisement and
having found the Petitioner disqualified, rejected the Petitioner's
candidature. For the said reasons, she submits that the Petition be
dismissed.
Analysis:
8. As the controversy in the petition revolves on clause c(3)
of the said advertisement and the details furnished by the Petitioner
in respect of the said clause in her application form, the same are
extracted hereinbelow:-
English Translation of clause c(3) at Page No.27B of the paper-book:
" Candidates who have attempted the first/second/ third
year of the Nursing course more than three times will
be disqualified from the recruitment process."
Relevant Column of the application dated 15.03.2023:
Kartikeya 6 of 9
7-WP-1206-2024(FCJ).odt
ब) अभ्यासक्रम एकूण पैकी टक्के किकतव्या उत्तीण संस्था/
अ
प्राप्त गुण प्रयत्नात झाल्याचे किवद्यापीठाचे
क्र
गुण उत्तीण मकि&ना व नाव
(I/II/ वर्ष
III)
i 280 500 56
जनरल नर्सिंस;ग vWUM जून बा. य. ल.
किमडवायफरी डिडप्लोमा नायर
अभ्यासक्रम (G.N.M) धमादाय
प्रथम वर्ष रुग्णालय
ii 267 500 53- II
जनरल नर्सिंस;ग vWUM डिडसेंबर बा.य.ल.
किमडवायफरी डिडप्लोमा २०१२. नायर
अभ्यासक्रम (G.N.M) धमादाय
किFतीय वर्ष रुग्णालय.
iii 351 600 58- I
जनरल नर्सिंस;ग डिडसेंबर बा.य.ल.
vWUM किमडवायफरी डिडप्लोमा २०१३. नायर
अभ्यासक्रम (G.N.M) धमादाय
तृतीय वर्ष रुग्णालय.
898 1600
एकूण गुण (i+ii+iii)
* जनरल नर्सिंस;ग vWUM किमडवायफरी डिडप्लोमा (G.N.M) अभ्यासक्रमाचे प्रथम /किFतीय/तृतीय वर्ष
एकापेक्षा जास्त प्रयत्नात उत्तीण झाले असल्यास सव गुणपकिLका सोबत जोडणे आवश्यक आ&े.
9. Clause c(3) of the said advertisement disqualifies a
candidate who has cleared the first / second / third year in more than
three attempts. Petitioner has not raised any challenge to the said
clause c(3). Petitioner does not dispute of having passed first year of
Kartikeya 7 of 9
7-WP-1206-2024(FCJ).odt
Nursing Course in four attempts.
10. The said advertisement issued by Respondent No.1 is clear
and unambiguous. Use of Stroke (/) between first/ /second/third
would mean one or either. "Attempts"referred to in clause c(3) of the
said advertisement pertain to the "year" i.e. First year or Second year
or the third Year of the Nursing Course.
11. We are unable to accept the interpretation of clause c(3) of
the said advertisement as put forth by the learned Counsel for the
Petitioner. Petitioner having cleared the first year of Nursing Course
in the forth attempt, incurred disqualification in terms of clause c(3)
of the said advertisement.
12. Even otherwise, as rightly submitted by Ms. Shilpa
Redkar, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1, perusal of column
7(b) of the application dated 15.03.2023, clearly indicates that the
Petitioner was aware of the true and proper import of clause c(3) of
the said advertisement and being so aware, has consciously left the
column pertaining to the attempts in respect of the first year of the
Nursing Course, blank. Mr. Abhijeet Khade, learned Counsel for the
Petitioner was unable to offer any justification for the said column
being left blank.
13. We do not find any fault in the non-inclusion of the
Kartikeya 8 of 9
7-WP-1206-2024(FCJ).odt
Petitioner's name in the list of selected candidates dated 12.07.2023 ,
as published by the Respondent No. 1.
14. Both the Petitions are without merit and as such dismissed.
There shall be no orders as to costs.
(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.) (M. S. KARNIK, J.)
Kartikeya 9 of 9
