Petitioners challenging an advertisement for Electricity Assistant posts claimed preference for apprentices. The court dismissed the petition on maintainability grounds due to participation in the selection process and on merits, noting reserved posts existed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1/2
wp5501.1 4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.5501 OF 2014
Nitesh Ramhari Charpe and others
-vs-
Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd.,Mumbai
Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.
Court's or Judge's Orders.
Mr.A.M.Sudame, counsel for the petitioners.
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK & P. R. BORA, JJ.
DATE : 10.10.2014.
By this petition, the petitioners challenge the advertisement issued by the Maharashtra Electricity Distribution Company, dated 25/08/2014 calling applications for appointment of candidates on the posts of Electricity Assistant.
According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, it was necessary for the respondents-Company to give preference to the apprentists. It is stated that all the petitioners were working as apprentists and had completed two years of apprenticeship. It is submitted that by the advertisement, weightage is given to the marks secured by the candidates at the H.S.C. and S.S.C. Examinations, but no weightage is given to the apprentists. It is submitted that the preference ought to have been granted to the apprentists in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (1995) 2 SCC 1 (UP State Road Transport Corporation v. UP Pariwahan Nigam Shishukhs Berozgar Sangh) .
The writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of maintainability as well as on merits. All the
2/2
wp5501.1 4
petitioners had applied in pursuance of the advertisement dated 25/08/2014. The forms of some of the petitioners were accepted and some of the petitioners were rejected, as they were not eligible for being appointed on the post of Electricity Assistant. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgments reported in (1995) 2 SCC 1 (UP State Road Transport Corporation v. UP Pariwahan Nigam Shishukhs Berozgar Sangh), (2010) 12 SCC 576 (Manish Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar) and (2008) 4 SCC 171 (Dhananjay Malik v. State of Uttaranchal) the petitioners cannot be permitted to challenge the advertisement dated 25/08/2014 after participating in the selection process. Since the petitioners had applied in pursuance of the advertisement, the petitioners are estopped from challenging the advertisement dated 25/08/2014.
Also, the advertisement cannot be said to be badin-law, on the ground that preference is not given to the apprentists. On a reading of the advertisement, we find that several posts are reserved for apprentists. If that be so, there is no question of giving preference to apprentists again while considering the candidates from open category. The judgment reported in (1995) 2 SCC 1 cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case, as in that case the posts were not reserved for apprentists.
Since there is no merit in the writ petition, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
KHUNTE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether petitioners-employees who applied under an advertisement can challenge it while claiming preference.
Whether an advertisement reserving posts for apprentices violates the Supreme Court judgment in UP State Road Transport Corporation case.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Nitesh Ramhari Charpe and others
Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd., Mumbai
VASANTI A. NAIK
P. R. BORA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
