Dismissed

Shrikant S/O Baliram Chauhan v. the Collector and President of District Selection Committee Yavatmal

Bombay HC15 Jul 2014WP/2616/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging the merit-based selection of computer engineers was dismissed. The court held that while degrees are equivalent, the petitioner could not challenge the appointment of others with different eligible degrees when he himself lacked the specific Computer Engineering degree.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with no order as to costs.

Shrikant S/O Baliram Chauhan Vs the Collector… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

WP2616-13

¶2

¶3

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No . IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 2616/2013

¶5

(SHRIKANT BALIRAM CHAUHAN VERSUS THE COLLECTOR & PRESIDENT, DISTRICT SELECTION COMMITTEE, YAVATMAL & OTHERS)

¶6

- - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶7

¶8

Shri A.D. Dangore counsel for the petitioner. Ms N.P. Mehta, A.G.P. for the R-1. Shri Anand Parchure, counsel for the R-3.

¶9

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND V.K. JADHAV, JJ.

¶10

DATE : JULY 15, 2014.

¶11

By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent no.1-Collector and President, District Selection Committee, Yavatmal to place the petitioner at Serial Number 1 in the final list of Computer Engineers (Grade-C) from VJ-A Category and further direct the respondent no.2-Chief Officer, Nagar Parishad, Yavatmal to issue an appointment order in favour of the petitioner.

¶12

The Municipal Council, Yavatmal had issued an advertisement on 24.12.2012 calling applications for appointment of engineers in various subjects. We are concerned in the instant petition with one post of Computer Engineer from VJ-A Category as the petitioner as well as the respondent nos.3 to 5 had applied for the post of Computer Engineer from VJ Category. The advertisement mentioned that the persons desirous of seeking appointment on the post of Computer Engineer should have a degree/diploma in Computers. The candidate was also required to pass MS-CIT and it was also necessary for the candidate to possess knowledge of Marathi Language. The application form was to be

¶13

WP2616-13

¶14

¶15

submitted online and the first and the second queries in the form related to the question whether the applicant had possessed a B.E. Degree in Computers or a Diploma in Computers. The Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships State Services (Absorption, Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2006 provides that the person desirous of being appointed on the post of Civil, Electrical or Computer Engineer in Maharashtra Municipal Service should hold a degree/diploma in the relevant field of Engineering, which is referable to Civil, Computer and Electrical Engineering. The petitioner possessed a Degree in Computer Science and Engineering, whereas the respondent nos.3 to 5 possessed a Degree in Information Technology. Admittedly, the respondent nos.3 to 5 had secured more marks than the petitioner and were more meritorious. The names of the respondent nos.3 to 5 were, therefore, placed above the name of the petitioner in the selection list. The petitioner has challenged the selection list on the ground that the respondent nos.3 to 5 were not eligible for appointment on the post of Computer Engineers as they do not possess the degree in Computer Engineering and possess a degree in Information Technology.

¶16

The respondents, the Collector as well as the other respondents, have filed the affidavits-in-reply. It is stated in the affidavits-in-reply that by the Government Resolutions dated 06.05.2013 and 02.12.2013, equivalence is granted to the degrees in Computer Engineering and Information Technology. The respondents have also referred to the Government Resolution dated 26.05.2004 and the circular issued by the University of Mumbai dated 10.02.2012 to point out that the degree in Computer Engineering and Degree in Information Technology is equivalent. It is stated in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent nos.3 to 5 that the petitioner cannot challenge the action of the respondent no.1 in considering the claim of the

¶17

WP2616-13

¶18

¶19

respondent nos.3 to 5 for appointment on the post in question on the ground that they did not possess a degree in Computer Engineering as the petitioner himself does not possess a degree in Computer Engineering and possesses a degree only in the subject of Computer Science and Engineering. A document annexed to the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent no.3 at Annexure-C shows that in Sant Gadge Baba University, from where the petitioner has secured the Bachelor of Computer Science and Engineering Degree, gives three distinct and separate degrees, i.e. in 1) Computer Science and Engineering, 2) Computer Engineering and 3) Information Technology. It is submitted that equivalence is given to all the three degrees and whenever a post of Computer Engineer is advertised, the candidates possessing all the three degrees are eligible for appointment. It is stated in the affidavit-inreply that the petitioner cannot rely on the advertisement and the Rules of 2006 as they refer to a degree in Computers and the petitioner did not possess a degree in Computers and possesses a degree in Computer Science and Engineering. According to the respondents, since admittedly the petitioner had scored lesser marks than the respondent nos.3 to 5 and is less meritorious, the respondent no.1 had rightly placed the names of the respondent nos.3 to 5 above the name of the petitioner in the list of selected candidates. The respondents sought for the dismissal of the writ petition.

¶20

On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the advertisement, the Rules of 2006 and various Government Resolutions and Circulars placed by the respondents on record, it appears that there is no merit in the challenge raised by the petitioner to the selection of the respondent nos.3 to 5 on the post of Computer Engineer in VJ-A Category. Admittedly, the degree possessed by the petitioner is in Computer Science and Engineering. The advertisement as well as the Rules of 2006 speak

¶21

WP2616-13

¶22

¶23

of a degree in Computer Engineering and not a degree in Computer Science and Engineering. There are various Government Resolutions and Circulars placed by the respondents on record to show that equivalence is granted by the Government from the year 2003 to all the three degrees, i.e. Computer Engineering, Computer Science and Engineering and Information Technology. If the petitioner could have been considered for appointment on the post of Computer Engineer on the basis of a degree in Computer Science and Engineering, the respondent nos.1 and 2 were justified in considering the claim of the respondent nos.3 to 5 for appointment on the post of Computer Engineer on the basis of the degree and diploma secured by them in the subject of Information Technology. We have seen from the prospectus of Sant Gadge Baba University, from where the petitioner has passed the degree in Computer Science and Engineering, that there are three different courses, i.e. Computer Engineering, Computer Science and Engineering and Information Technology. It is rightly submitted on behalf of the respondents that when the petitioner did not possess a degree in Computer Engineering, the petitioner does not have any right to challenge the action of the respondent nos.1 and 2 in placing the respondent nos.3 to 5 above the petitioner in the selection list on the basis of their merit on the ground that they did not possess a degree in Computer Engineering. We do not find any illegality in the procedure adopted by the respondents in selecting the candidates for appointment on the post of Computer Engineering in VJ-A Category.

¶24

Since there is no merit in the writ petition, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶25

JUDGE JUDGE

¶26

APTE

Shrikant S/O Baliram Chauhan v. the Collector and President of District Selection Committee Yavatmal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shrikant S/O Baliram Chauhan v. the Collector and President of District Selection Committee Yavatmal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs. Pratibha Surendra Bhawte Vs Mr. Surendra @ Sudhir S/O Narayanrao Bhawte

Dr.Udhav Antu Sukhdeve Nagpur Vs the Govt. of Mah. Mumbai and 4 Others.

Tafazzul Faizullah Khan Vs Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad Buldhana and 3 Others

Pradeepkumar S/O Shri Indal Bhimte Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Secty. and Ors.

Pramod S/O Shankarrao Khadse Vs the Head Master, Shri Gurudeo Ashram School, Masona Tah. Achalpur Dist. Amravati

Galvanotek Industries Private Limited, Kolkata Vs Convetry Spring and Engineering Company Private Limited and Others