Dismissed

Prabhavati Gundiba Mane v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC12 Dec 2011WP/4014/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This case involved a writ petition challenging the appointment process for Class-IV posts where the petitioner's name was deleted from the SC women category list after a correction in another candidate's marks altered the category allocation. The court rejected the claim as the petitioner had no merit to the list.

What did the court decide?

The petition was rejected; no appointment direction was granted.

Prabhavati Gundiba Mane Vs the State of Mah and Ors. — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

wp4014-09.odt

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.4014/2009

¶5

Smt.Prabhavati Gundiba Mane

¶6

.. Petitioner

¶7

Versus The State of Maharashtra and others

¶8

... Respondents

¶9

Mr.M.P.Kale,Adv.for petitioner. Mr.S.K.Kadam,AGP for respondent no.1. Mr.P.R.Tandale,Adv.for respondent no.2 & 3. Mr.S.G.Chapalgaonkar,Adv.for R.4 Smt.Anjali Dube,Adv.for R.5.

¶10

CORAM : NARESH H.PATIL AND T.V.NALAWADE, JJ.

¶11

DATE : 12th DECEMBER^, 2011

¶12

ORAL ORDER : [PER NALAWADE,J.]

¶13

1] The petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

¶14

¶15

wp4014-09.odt

¶16

India to challenge the selection process which was followed by respondents for making appointments on Class-IV posts. Both sides are heard.

¶17

2] It is the case of petitioner that in the initial select list prepared by the respondents, she was shown as selected candidate from the reserved [female] Scheduled Caste category. She has contended that due to some mistakes committed by Maharashtra Knowledge Corporation Limited [for short MKCL], the institution which was appointed to generate merit lists in respect of the tests taken by the respondents verification process was followed. It is contended that one Rohini Kamble was shown to be selected from open category though she belongs to Scheduled Caste [women category] on the basis of marks secured by her but after the correction process, one female candidate viz. Smt. Mane Prabhavati was added in the list of open candidates and Smt.Rohini Kamble was taken on the list of Scheduled Caste [women category] and then the name of the petitioner was deleted from the select list. It is her case that she was not informed before

¶18

¶19

wp4014-09.odt

¶20

deletion of her name from select list and proper procedure was not followed for selecting the candidates. In the petition, she has prayed for relief of direction that she should be appointed on Class-IV post if there is such a vacant post from reserved category. A chart giving information regarding the vacancies and the posts which will fall vacant in future is produced by the petitioner.

¶21

3] For respondents, some record is filed to show that due to mistake committed by MKCL, the verification of the answer sheets was done. in affidavit in reply, the particulars of the mistakes are mentioned and it is contended that the new list came to be prepared as per the decision given by this Court in Writ Petition No.1671/08 [Manjiri Patil V/s State of Maharashtra]. It is contended that correction was done as per direction given by the State Government.

¶22

4] The record is produced to show that initially the petitioner who belongs to [S.C. women category] was shown in open

¶23

¶24

wp4014-09.odt

¶25

category but her name was not mentioned in the list of first 10 candidates [only 10 candidates from the open category were to be selected]. Smt. Rohini Kamble was at Sr.No.10 from the open category. Petitioner was shown at Sr.No.4 from S.C. [women category]. The marks did not change after the verification and no correction in marks was done by the respondent in respect of Rohini Kamble and present petitioner. But the marks of Suvara Jadhav were changed from 46.29% to 47.29%. Due to this change, Suvarna Jadhav came in open category and Smt.Rohini Kamble was pushed to reserved category. Rohini Kamble had secured 47.29% marks and petitioner had secured 42.29% marks. In view of these circumstances, name of present petitioner came to be deleted from the reserved category for giving place to Smt.Rohini Kamble as there were particular number of posts (four) reserved for this category. There was no place for petitioner in that list also. Thus, on merits, the petitioner has no case. The submission of the petitioner that if there is some vacancy, she can

¶26

be appointed as against that vacancy, cannot be considered as giving such appointment would be giving back door entry to the

¶27

wp4014-09.odt

¶28

¶29

petitioner. No case is made out for interference and so the petition stands rejected.

¶30

(T.V.NALAWADE, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL,J.)

¶31

umg/wp4014-09

Prabhavati Gundiba Mane v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prabhavati Gundiba Mane 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

Vaibhav Subhash Thakur Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Rashtriya Shikshan Samiti Nanded Vs the Education Officer Secondary Z P Nanded and Ors.

Jalna District Central Co. Op Bank Ltd. Vs Ashok Sitaram Kodande

Jaymala Annarao Patil Vs the State of Mahrashtra and Ors.

Pratibha Mahilal Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Muktai Nagar through Chairman and Anr. Vs Dnyaneshwar Ramdas Chavhan and Anr.

Shaikh Mahmood Ali S/O. Abdul Rahman Vs the State of Mah. and Ors.