The petitioner, having applied under the Open Women Category and stated she did not possess a Non-Creamy Layer Certificate, challenged the denial of her appointment owing to missing certification. The High Court rejected the petition.
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-wp2094.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.2094 OF 2016
Rameshwari d/o. Sukhdev Solankar
..Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra and ors...Respondents
Mr.K.M.Nagarkar, advocate for petitioner
Mr.A.G.Magre, AGP for respondent no.1 – State
Mr.S.T.Shelke, Advocate for respondent nos.2 and 3
Mr.P.B.Shirsath, Advocate for respondent no.4
CORAM : S.S. SHINDE AND
SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : JUNE 08, 2016
PER COURT :
Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the
parties. Perused the contents of the petition and
the documents produced on record.
2]The learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioner submits that the petitioner has been
denied appointment to the post of Assistant Civil
2 2-wp2094.odt
Engineer on the sole ground that the petitioner
has not submitted Non-Creamy Layer Certificate
issued by the competent authority. He submits that
the petitioner applied for the said post from Open
Women Category and clearly mentioned in her
application that she does not possess Non-Creamy
Layer Certificate. Therefore, according to him, on
the ground that the petitioner has not produced
Non-Creamy Layer Certificate, her appointment to
the said post should not have been denied by the
respondents/authorities.
3]The learned Counsel appearing for respondent
nos.2 and 3 submits that from the Open Women
Category, a candidate who has secured 126 marks
has been selected to the said post. The petitioner
has secured 112 marks and therefore, in view of
the merit of the petitioner, she has been denied
appointment to the said post.
3 2-wp2094.odt
4]Upon considering the rival submissions and
the documents on record, it is clear that a
candidate from the Open Women Category who has
secured 126 marks has been given appointment to
the said post. Admittedly, the petitioner, while
filling the application for appointment to the
said post has mentioned that she does not fall
under the Non-Creamy Layer. Therefore, the
question to consider the petitioner's candidature
from Non-Creamy Layer would not arise.
5]For the reasons afore stated, we do not see
any reason to entertain this petition. The
petition stands rejected.
[SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.][S.S. SHINDE, J.]
kbp
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a candidate from the Open Women Category who explicitly stated she does not fall under Non-Creamy Layer can claim denial of appointment on the ground of non-submission of Non-Creamy Layer Cert
Rameshwari d/o. Sukhdev Solankar
The State of Maharashtra
respondents
S.S. SHINDE
SANGITRAO S. PATIL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court