The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the rejection of the petitioner's application for the post of Registrar. The Court held that the petitioner's experience as a Laboratory Assistant did not qualify as supervisory experience required by the recruitment advertisement.
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)
4-wp-1005-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
4 WRIT PETITION NO.1005 OF 2016
ATUL ANILRAO PATIL
..PETITIONER
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR..RESPONDENTS
Mr. Kshitij Surve, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. S. P. Tiwari, AGP for Respondent-State.
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
R. G. AVACHAT, JJ.
DATED : 11th DECEMBER, 2018.
PER COURT:-
1.Mr. Surve, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that pursuant to the
advertisement issued by respondent no.2 on
08.04.2011, the petitioner applied for the post of
Registrar, Vocational Education and Training
Directorate, Maharashtra Educational Service,
Group-B (Non Technical). The application of the
petitioner was processed and was also shortlisted.
However, the petitioner was not called for the
interview on the ground that the petitioner does
not possess the necessary experience. The learned
counsel submits that the petitioner possesses the
experience of Laboratory Assistant of 13 years. The
same is necessary experience. The petitioner also
possesses a degree. The petitioner has worked as
(2) 4-wp-1005-2016
Laboratory Assistant at Puranmal Lahoti Government
Polytechnic, Ausa Road, Latur. Nature of the work
performed by the petitioner and the degree of the
petitioner entitles the petitioner to be eligible
for the said post. The act of the respondent in
holding the petitioner ineligible on the ground of
experience is erroneous.
2.The learned counsel for the petitioner
relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in a case
of Secretary, A.P.P.S.C. Vs. Y.V.V.R. Srinivasulu
reported in 2003 CJ (SC) 962 to contend that the
preference would only mean that other things being
qualitatively and quantitatively equal, those with
the additional qualification have to be preferred.
3.The said judgment may not inure to the
benefit of the petitioner. In the present case the
preference is given to the persons who possessed
experience in supervisory category and naturally
the experience of the petitioner cannot be said to
be in supervisory category.
4.The learned A.G.P. submits that the
experience held by the petitioner was not in a
supervisory capacity, as such he was ineligible.
There were large number of candidates that had
applied for the post.
5.The requisite educational qualification
and the experience is provided under Clause 4.3 of
(3) 4-wp-1005-2016
the advertisement, the same reads thus:
“(i)Possess a degree at least in second
class or a post graduate degree and
thereafter,
(ii)Possessexperiencepreferablyin
supervisory capacity for not less than five
years in a Government office or an
Educational Institution.”
6.The petitioner was working as Laboratory
Assistant. The post for which the applications are
invited is a post of Registrar. The post of
Registrar is an administrative post having a
supervisory control. Preference is given to those
who possessed experience in supervisory capacity.
Certainly the experience of the petitioner as
Laboratory Assistant may not qualify for the same.
It has been said that 14 candidates were
shortlisted and were considered for interview.
Those candidates who are appointed are not before
this Court. The affidavit is filed that large
number of applications were received having
requisite experience and qualification.
7.In light of the above, Tribunal has not
committed any error. Writ Petition is disposed of.
No costs.
Devendra/December-18
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner possessing 13 years as Laboratory Assistant satisfies the requirement of experience in supervisory capacity for the post of Registrar.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Secretary, A.P.P.S.C. Vs. Y.V.V.R. SrinivasuluReferred¶2
Secretary, A.P.P.S.C. Vs. Y.V.V.R. Srinivasulu reported in 2003 CJ (SC) 962
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Atul Anilrao Patil
The State of Maharashtra
S. V. Gangapurwala
R. G. Avachat
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court