Petitioner, an open category candidate who mistakenly ticked Ex-serviceman, sought correction. The Court held that with no vacant posts and surplus candidates to be absorbed, the petition was not maintainable. Writ petition was disposed of.
Writ petition disposed of; no costs.
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.
19wp7552-15.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
19 WRIT PETITION NO. 7552 OF 2015
VIDYA BHARAT KAWARE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...
Advocate for the petitioner : Mr. R. V.Gore
AGP for the State: Mr. B. A. Shinde
Advocate for respondent No.2: Mr.A.R. Nikam
Advocate for respondent Nos. 3 and 4: Mr. S.T.Shelke
Advocate for respondent No.5: Mrs. R.K. Ladda
CORAM: S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
K. L. WADANE, JJ.
DATE:
25th October, 2016
ORDER:
1. Mr. Gore, the learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that pursuant to the CET exam conducted by the
respondents, the petitioner had appeared for the said
CET exam as an open category candidate. The
petitioner does not belong to Ex-Army category.
However, by mistake had ticked column No. 8 meant for
Ex-serviceman category. The learned counsel submits
that the petitioner, on 16.08.2010, had requested for
correction of the said category and had further
requested not to consider his case from Ex-serviceman
category. The mark memo was also sought to be
corrected.
1/4
19wp7552-15.odt
2. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner
filed applications on 13.04.2011 so also on 25.03.2011
for correcting the category and to be considered from
20% quota for B.P.Ed. English Medium. However, the same
was not considered. No communication was made to the
petitioner. The petitioner filed an appeal before the
GrievanceCommittee.TheGrievanceCommittee,
thereafter disposed of the same as not maintainable and
therefore the present petition is filed.
3. The learned counsel submits that the whole
tenor of the application, if it is seen, it would be
clear that the applicant had applied from open
category. A human error was committed in marking
Column No.8. No document was also annexed with regard
to the Ex-serviceman category and immediately on
noticing the said defect, the petitioner had sought
correction in the mark memo and so also the
application. The same ought to have been considered.
4. Mr. Nikam, the learned counsel for the
respondents submits that the petitioner was considered
from Ex-serviceman category as per his application
form. No document was annexed of ex-serviceman. As
2/4
19wp7552-15.odt such, could not be considered. The application will have to be scrutinized scrupulously. In absence of any document pertaining to the ex-serviceman category, the petitioner's case is rightly rejected. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in case of Savantkumar s/o Jagdishchandra Mandwal Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, reported in 2014 (7) Bom.C.R.887 . The learned counsel further, on instructions, submits that no post is vacant even from 20% B.P.Ed. English Medium category.
5. We have taken on record the communication issued
by the Director of Education (Primary). The same is
marked 'X' for identification. The said communication
specifically states that for the academic year 2015-16,
surplus candidates are to be filled in. There are 117
excess posts and only 20 posts are filled in. As per
communication dated 29.09.2016 issued by the
Commissioner, no posts for 20% English Medium B.P. Ed.
category is vacant. There are surplus teachers who are
required to be accommodated. The petitioner had
committed an error in the application itself and as
such, was not considered. It cannot be said that the
respondent had acted illegally.
3/4
19wp7552-15.odt
6. Considering the fact that even vacant posts
does not exist and the surplus candidates would be
absorbed, the case of the petitioner cannot be
considered.
7. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No
costs.
(K. L. WADANE, J.) (S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. )
JPC
4/4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner who erroneously ticked the Ex-serviceman column is entitled to correction and placement in the 20% quota when no posts are vacant.
Whether the High Court is justified in rejecting the writ petition due to the petitioner's error and lack of vacant positions.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Savantkumar s/o Jagdishchandra Mandwal Vs. State of Maharashtra and anotherRelied on¶23
2014 (7) Bom.C.R.887 · Who else cites this
VIDYA BHARAT KAWARE
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
S. V. GANGAPURWALA
K. L. WADANE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court