Dismissed

Seema Bhanudas Bhosale and Anr. v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC8 Dec 2010WP/7969/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging the rejection of an employment claim by the State. The petitioner argued that appointed candidates violated seniority rules and constitutional mandates. Dismissing the claim, the court held that pre-2009 appointments adhered to the then-operative Division Bench judgment and are protected against later legal changes.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed.

Seema Bhanudas Bhosale and Anr. Vs the State of Mah… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

wp7969.10

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 7969 OF 2010

¶5

Ku. Seema d/o Bhanudas Bhosale & another

¶6

.. PETITIONERS

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

The State of Maharashtra & others

¶9

.. RESPONDENTS

¶10

Mr. M.B. Kolpe, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.K. Tambe, AGP for the State. Mr. K.S. Bhore, advocate for respondent no. 4.

¶11

=====

¶12

CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & R.M. BORDE, JJ. DATE : 8th DECEMBER, 2010

¶13

PER COURT :

¶14

1 By way of present petition the petitioner impugns the judgment and

¶15

order passed by the learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal thereby

¶16

rejecting the original application filed by the present petitioner claiming

¶17

employment from the category of project affected persons.

¶18

2 It is the contention of the petitioner that respondent nos. 3 to 5 were

¶19

wp7969.10

¶20

¶21

less meritorious than the petitioner and inspite of that they were selected. Mr. Kolpe, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits

¶22

that in view of Government Resolution dt. 16-3-1999, procedure is prescribed for the purpose of filling in horizontal reservation. He submits that appointment of respondent nos. 3 to 5 have been made contrary to the provisions of said Government Resolution and as such, the appointments are liable to be set aside. He further submits that in accordance with the Government policy, 30% reservation ought to have been provided for woman category even in the category of project affected persons and even if that would have been done, the petitioner would have been selected.

¶23

3 The Division Bench of this court in Writ Petition no. 7472/2007 had laid down that insofar as the appointments from the category of project affected persons are concerned, the same are required to be made purely on the basis of seniority of the candidates in the waiting list. In pursuance to the judgment delivered by the Division Bench of this court, the Government

¶24

had no option than to issue the Government Resolution directing that the

¶25

appointments from project affected persons category will have to be made

¶26

purely on the basis of the seniority list maintained by the respective

¶27

wp7969.10

¶28

¶29

Collectors. Undisputedly, respondent nos. 3 to 5 are senior to the petitioner in the waiting list maintained by the Collector. Insofar as the Government Resolution on which learned counsel for the petitioner relies is concerned, it applies to all the horizontal reservations.

¶30

4 When a Government Resolution and a judgment of this court are in conflict with each other, the Government has no option than to follow the judgment of the Division Bench of this court.

¶31

5 No doubt, subsequently vide judgment and order dt. 9-7-2009 the Larger Bench of this court in the case of Rajendra Pandurang Pagare Vs. The

¶32

State of Maharashtra reported in M.L.J. 2009(4) 961 has held that the view taken by the Division Bench was inconsistent with the constitutional mandate. However, the appointments which were made prior to delivery of

¶33

the judgment by Full Bench of this court, the appointments would be governed by the law as it existed i.e. the law laid down by the Division Bench. Undisputedly, appointments of respondent nos. 3 to 5 have been

¶34

made prior to 9-7-2009 i.e. the date on which the Full Bench has delivered judgment.

¶35

wp7969.10

¶36

¶37

6 In that view of the matter, no merit is found in the petition. Petition is therefore dismissed.

¶38

( R. M. BORDE ) JUDGE

¶39

( B. R. GAVAI ) JUDGE

¶40

dyb

Seema Bhanudas Bhosale and Anr. v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Seema Bhanudas Bhosale and Anr. v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Uddhav Bapurao Baswade Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Nemichand Hanumantrao Kanote Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Rajendra Madhav Bhosale and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ku Aditi Abhay Kolte through Her Father Abhay P Kolte Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Subhash Adhar Mahajan Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Tushar Janardan Bhamare Vs the State of Mah and Ors.