Allowed

Shri. Maruti Pandurang Olekar v. the Chief Officer, Zilla Parishad, Pune and Ors.

Bombay HC24 Mar 2017WP/665/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court quashed an order disqualifying a sportsman from a post due to doubts about his participation certificate. The court held the certificate valid and directed that the petitioner be considered for appointment in future sports quota recruitments.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order was quashed and set aside. The petitioner shall be considered for appointment in the sports quota in case of a fresh recruitment process.

Shri. Maruti Pandurang Olekar Vs the Chief… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

910.WP.665.12.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.665 OF 2012

¶3

Shri Maruti Pandurang Olekar

¶4

..Petitioner

¶5

Vs.

¶6

The Chief Officer, Zilla Parishad

¶7

having office at Yashwantrao Chavan

¶8

Bhavan, Pune and Others

¶9

..Respondents

¶10

Mr. G. M. Savagave, for the Petitioner.

¶11

Ms. Sushma Bhende, AGP, for Respondent Nos.4,5 and 8.

¶12

Mrs. Neelam D. Erande i/b Mr. D. R. Talankar, for Respondent No.7.

¶13

CORAM :- S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & B.P.COLABAWALLA, JJ. DATE :- MARCH 24, 2017.

¶14

P. C.:

¶15

We have heard both sides. The Petitioner is

¶16

challenging an order passed on 22^nd November, 2011 by the Deputy Director of Sports and Youth Services, Maharashtra State, Pune.

¶17

2 By this order, the Petitioner who was selected for

¶18

Aswale 1/5

¶19

the post of Multipurpose Health Service Worker on the establishment of the Pune Zilla Parishad in the Sports quota/reservation for a sportsman, has been held to be disqualified. That appointment was made on the strength of a certificate. The Petitioner having participated in the 14^th Maharashtra State Sub Juniors and Senior Taekwondo Championship held on 1^st and 2^nd October, 2000 at Beed and securing the third position.

¶20

3 The certificate was doubted and that is why the Directorate of Sports and Youth Services was requested to verify and scrutinize the same. That Directorate purports to have obtained the relevant information and on a verification holds that this certificate was not enough for the Petitioner to obtain the appointment. That certificate does not indicate that the Petitioner is qualified as a Sportsman so as to obtain appointment in the Sports quota.

¶21

4 An affidavit-in-reply was filed by this Deputy Directorate justifying this order. Thereafter, it has been

¶22

Aswale 2/5

¶23

910.WP.665.12.doc

¶24

pointed out that the present Petitioner was not fulfilling the minimum sports qualification under 5% job reservation scheme. The Petitioner relies upon an affidavit of one Bhaskar R. Karkera, the then Secretary of the Taekwondo Association Maharashtra. However, that affidavit was not enough to prove that the Petitioner qualifies for this appointment.

¶25

5 A rejoinder affidavit was filed by the Petitioner in which he raised a specific contention that the impugned order is incorrect. He says that the Petitioner has been relying upon this affidavit of the Secretary General of that Association. The Secretary General can be still approached, if there is any doubt. On the other hand, the Petitioner has obtained clarification from the Association and he relied upon the letters dated 12^th February, 2009 and 24^th February, 2009. Thus, Mr. Karkera, was the General Secretary. The Association had authorized him to certify the participation of the Petitioner. It is in these circumstances that the certificate issued by the Taekwondo Association could have

Aswale 3/5

910.WP.665.12.doc

been relied upon.

6 The Petitioner’s detailed affidavit having been forwarded, the Deputy Director was also called upon to clarify the position. The Deputy Director has filed an additional affidavit and at running page 82, in Paragraph 2 of this affidavit, this deponent states as under:-

¶30

“2. I say that by letter dated 26.07.2013 the Respondent No.5 informed the Divisional Deputy Director, Sports and Youth, Mumbai Division that Mr. Bhaskar Karkera, was Secretary of Taekwondo Association of Maharashtra, Pune, when Form-3 was issued and he had signed on the said form as Secretary of the said Association. Hereto annexed and marked as Exh.1 Colly . Are copies of letter dated 26.07.2013 and Form-3.”

¶31

7 In the light of this clear stand of Respondent No.4 and the letter of 26^th July, 2013 issued by Respondent No.5, it is apparent that the Petitioner can claim to be qualified and for being eligible to hold the post in a sports quota.

¶32

8 However and in the meanwhile, we have found that despite the Petitioner obtaining these clarifications and the

¶33

Aswale 4/5

¶34

910.WP.665.12.doc

¶35

affidavits filed, still the Pune Zilla Parishad has discontinued the appointment of the Petitioner.

¶36

9 In the event any fresh appointment process is initiated, we are of the opinion that the Petitioner should be considered for appointment in the sports quota. We clarify that the certificate cannot now be doubted and of participation in the competition at Beed organized by the Taekwondo Association of Maharashtra. The Petitioner’s participation therein and his third rank is confirmed by the certificate. Therefore, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. The Writ Petition succeeds. In the event any fresh recruitment process is initiated to fill up such a post by the Pune Zilla Parishad, the Petitioner shall be considered for appointment on the strength of this certificate and provided all other qualifications and requirements in the notice of recruitment are fulfilled by him. The Writ Petition is disposed off in these terms. No costs.

¶37

(B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.) (S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

¶38

Aswale

Shri. Maruti Pandurang Olekar v. the Chief Officer, Zilla Parishad, Pune and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Maruti Pandurang Olekar v. the Chief Officer, Zilla Parishad, Pune and Ors.

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

Shri. Rocky Gopal Vekhande Vs the Commissioner and Ors.

Shankar Pundlikrao Dande Vs Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Kolhapur Region and Ors.

Shivram Sadashiv Tarale Vs Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Kolhapur Region and Ors.

Pramod Dhondiram Gaikwad Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Radheya Machining Limited Vs Kennametal India Limited

Devanand Baban Mekhale Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Ors.