Allowed

Sukanya Dilip Vaidya v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC29 Jan 2015WP/164/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging rejection of petitioner's sports quota eligibility due to pre-dating a Government Reservation Order. High Court interpreted the Resolution to benefit those who secured eminence before its promulgation and quashed the rejection.

What did the court decide?

Decision of Authority dated 27th October 2014 and Tribunal order quashed; Authorities directed to consider petitioner's certificates for sports category without rejection on timing ground. Rule made a

Sukanya Dilip Vaidya Vs the State of Maharashtra and… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

65 WP.164.15.odt

¶3

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 164 OF 2015

¶5

Sukanya D/o Dilip Vaidya, Age : 22 years, Occu.: Education, R/o. Sugav Kd., Post-Kumbephal, Waghoba Nagar, Devthan Road, Tal, Akole, Dist. - Ahmednagar. ... PETITIONER

¶6

V E R S U S

¶7

1. The State of Maharashtra, Through it's Secretary, The Education and Sports Department, Mantralaya.

¶8

1. The Secretary, The Revenue Department, Mantralaya.

¶9

1. The Assistant Director, The Sports and Youth Services, Maharashtra, Pune.

¶10

1. The Collector, Ahmednagar, Dist. Ahmednagar.

¶11

1. The Deputy Collector, Ahmednagar, Dist. Ahmednagar.

¶12

1. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sangamner, Tal. Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar. ... RESPONDENTS ( Notice to be served through the Government Pleader, High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad).

¶13

¶14

65 WP.164.15.odt

¶15

Mr. Shermale K. N., Advocate for Petitioner Mr.G.K.Thigale, A.G.P. for Respondent/State Authorities.

¶16

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA and N. W. SAMBRE, JJ. DATE : 29^th January, 2015.

¶17

ORAL JUDGMENT: ( Per S. V. Gangapurwala, J. )

¶18

1 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of

¶19

the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing.

¶20

2 Mr.Shermale, learned counsel submits that the Petitioner is selected for the post of Talathi from the sports category. The Petitioner possess two certificates in Rope-Mallakhamb. The Petitioner stood as runners-up. The said certificates are issued by the Association of Indian Universities. The learned counsel submits that when the certificates were sent for verification, the case of the Petitioner was negatived on

¶21

the ground that tournaments were held prior to the Government Resolution dated 20^th September, 2013. The learned counsel submits that the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal so also the authorities have wrongly interpreted the said Government Resolution. The Government Resolution will have effect from the date of the

¶22

¶23

65 WP.164.15.odt

¶24

promulgation of the said Government Resolution. It will also apply to the tournaments, which were held earlier to the said Government Resolution. The case of the Petitioner cannot be negatived only on the ground that the Petitioner had participated in the tournaments conducted prior to the said Government Resolution.

¶25

3 Mr.Thigale, learned AGP supports the judgment delivered by the Tribunal and the decision of the authority. According to the learned AGP, as the Government Resolution has been issued on 20^th September, 2013, the certificates produced by the Petitioner were not eligible to be considered.

¶26

4 We have considered the submissions canvassed by the learned counsel for respective parties. Vide said Government Resolution, 5% reservation is given to the sports category for participation and securing prominence in the sports. Clause (2) of the said Government Resolution is relied by the Tribunal and authority while negating the case of the Petitioner. Clause (2) of Government Resolution dated 20^th September, 2013, reads as under:

¶27

“२. उपररकतरततदखखळळडतआरकणळअअतररतननररनमतझळलखलयळव हरणळऱयळसवरशळसनननणरयळअनळलळरतरळहहल. तसखचहहतरततदशळसन ननणरयळचयळनदनळअकळपळसतनलळरतहरईल.”

¶28

¶29

65 WP.164.15.odt

¶30

5 Perusal of the said clause, it is manifest that the said clause would intent to mean that 5% reservation would be provided from the date of said Government Resolution. It cannot be interpreted to mean that if the Petitioner had participated in the tournament prior to the promulgation of the said Government Resolution and has secured eminence in the same, the said certificates cannot be considered. If the said Government Resolution is interpreted in the manner interpreted by the authority and the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, then that would be defeating the very purport of giving reservation of 5% to the sportsmen, who have excelled in sports nor it would subserve the object and the intent of the said Government Resolution.

¶31

6 In light of the above, we pass the following order:

¶32

I. The decision of the authority dated 27^th October, 2014, so also the order of the Tribunal, are quashed and set aside.

¶33

II. The authorities shall consider the certificates produced by the Petitioner and shall not reject the said certificates and the case of the Petitioner for consideration from the sports category only on the ground that the said

¶34

¶35

65 WP.164.15.odt

¶36

certificates are in respect of participation in the tournaments prior to the Government Resolution dated 20^th September, 2013. III. Rule accordingly made absolute in above terms. No costs.

¶37

[ N. W. SAMBRE, J. ] [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]

¶38

ndm

Sukanya Dilip Vaidya v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukanya Dilip Vaidya v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

Balaji Maroti Tidke Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Panchphula Sukhdev Sonwane @ Panchphula Sindhu Bhotakar Vs Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad and Others

Navnath Bhurasing Rathod Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Brahmaprakash Thakurdas Thakur Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Pandurang Shivaji Gokale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Janabai Vyankat Valampalle @ Janabai Pandurang Gokale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others