Dismissed

Manoj Madhav Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra through Secty., Dept. Rural Development and Water Resources, Mumbai and Others

Bombay HC26 Mar 2015WP/6012/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petition sought a declaration that the petitioner was eligible for appointment on a Junior Engineer post reserved for Scheduled Caste. The court dismissed the petition, holding the rejection was justified as the petitioner secured 34% marks against the required minimum of 45%.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with no order as to costs.

Manoj Madhav Gaikwad Vs State of Maharashtra through… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

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

¶3

Writ Petition No.6012/2014

¶4

Manoj Madhav Gaikwad Vs. State of Maharashtra and others

¶5

Notes, Office Memoranda of

¶6

Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders.

¶7

Shri P.S. Wathore, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri T.R. Kankale, AGP for the respondent nos.1 and 2.

¶8

Shri J. B. Kasat, Advocate for the respondent nos. 3 and 4.

¶9

C ORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK &

¶10

A.M. BADAR , JJ.

¶11

DATED : MARCH 26, 2015.

¶12

The petitioner seeks a declaration that the petitioner is eligible to be appointed on the post of Junior Engineer, Class-III, Zilla Parishad, Amravati, reserved for scheduled caste (earthquake affected persons category) as per the advertisement issued on 15.9.2014.

¶13

It is stated on behalf of the petitioner that though the petitioner had applied in pursuance of the advertisement for the post of Junior Engineer from the scheduled caste (earthquake affected persons category) and though the petitioner had passed in the written examination, the petitioner was not called for interview. It is stated that no person from the aforesaid category is

¶14

¶15

selected and appointed on the post of Junior Engineer. It is stated that though only one post was earmarked for the other backward classes, two candidates from the other backward classes are selected.

¶16

The Respondent-Zilla Parishad has filed an affidavit-in-reply and it is stated therein that it was necessary for the petitioner to secure at least 45% marks in the written examination in view of the Government Resolution dated 27^th June, 2008. It is stated that the petitioner secured very low marks, i.e. only 34% marks in the written examination. Since the petitioner did not secure the minimum marks required, for appointment on the post, the Zilla Parishad rightly rejected the candidature of the petitioner. It is stated that in the facts of the case, the petitioner could not have been selected and appointed.

¶17

On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the Government Resolution dated 27^th June, 2008, as also the advertisement, it appears that a direction cannot be issued to the Zilla Parishad to appoint the petitioner on the post of Junior Engineer. The petitioner had not secured minimum marks, required for being considered for appointment on the post of Junior

¶18

¶19

Engineer, in the written examination. Since the petitioner secured only 34% marks as against the minimum marks of 45%, the Zilla Parishad was justified in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner. We do not find any illegality in the action of the respondent-Zilla Parishad in not calling the petitioner for interview. The judgment reported in (2008) 3 SCC 512 (K. Manjusree Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another) and relied on by the counsel for the petitioner cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case, as in the instant case the Zilla Parishad had not changed the criteria after the advertisement was issued.

¶20

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

¶21

JUDGE JUDGE

¶22

Ambulkar

Manoj Madhav Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra through Secty., Dept. Rural Development and Water Resources, Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Madhav Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra through Secty., Dept. Rural Development and Water Resources, Mumbai and Others

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

Ravindra Rameshwar Aade Vs Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Buldhana and Another

Sanjay S/O Chintamanrao Bondre Vs State of Mah., through Its Secretary, Dept. of Education and 4 Others

Megha D/O Waman Sawsakde Vs the Vice-Chancellor/Registrar Maharashtra University of Health Science, Nashik and 3 Others

Sudhir Tukaramji Nagot and Another Vs State Election Commission, Maharashtra State through Its Commissioner, Mumbai and Others

Sharda D/O Jawaharlal Parikh and Another Vs Kishor Manilal Gujrati

Pravin S/O Shamraoji Kshirsagar and Others Vs State of Maharashtra, Department of School Education and Sports Deptt., through Secty. and Others