Disposed

Shri Ambaji Dilip Jadhav and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC6 Aug 2018WP/14113/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenging rejection of appointment applications for Maratha reservation due to false representation regarding possession of caste and non-creamy layer certificates. Court disposed of the writ petition denying relief as petitioners admitted lacking certificates at the time of application. Left respondents discretionary to reconsider if certificates are produced later.

What the court decided

AI extract

Shri Ambaji Dilip Jadhav and Others Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶2

112 WRIT PETITION NO. 14113 OF 2017

¶3

SHRI AMBAJI DILIP JADHAV AND OTHERS
VERSUS

¶4

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶5

...

¶6

Advocate for Petitioners : Mr.Chalak Amol B.
AGP for Respondent Nos 1 to 3 : Mr.N.T. Bhagat
Advocate for Respondent Nos 4 & 5 : Mr. Bajaj Anil S.

¶7

...

¶8

CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA

¶9

AND

¶10

SUNIL K.KOTWAL, JJ.

¶11

 DATE : AUGUST 6, 2018

¶12

O R D E R :

¶13

Mr. Chalak, learned counsel submits that all

¶14

these petitioners applied for benefit of reservation of
Maratha caste.

¶15

2.Advertisement was issued in August, 2014 and
pursuant to it the petitioners had applied. The
learned counsel submits that on the date when the
applications were given pursuant to the advertisement,

¶16

the petitioners had applied for getting caste
certificates of Maratha caste. Their applications were

¶17

2 wp14113.17

¶18

pending. The petitioners had to state in the
application that they are possessing the necessary
certificates, as unless and until applications
contain the statement that they possess necessary
caste certificate and non creamy layer certificate
the applications could not have been accepted.

¶19

3.The learned counsel submits that after the

¶20

stay granted by this Court at the Principal Seat at
Bombay to the Maratha reservation in November, 2014,
subsequently caste certificates were not issued.

¶21

4.The learned counsel submits that the Court
passed interim order that the candidates who had
applied for benefits to Maratha reservation should be
given first appointment for eleven months and
subsequently their appointments would be pursuant to
the interim orders of the Court.

¶22

5.The learned counsel submits that even

¶23

otherwise the petitioners secured more marks on
merits and they can be considered from open category.
The learned counsel to buttress the submissions
relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of
Delhi High Court in the case of Hari Singh vs Staff
Selection Commission and another, reported in 2010
(116) DRJ 668.

¶24

6.According to the learned counsel, if posts

¶25

are vacant the respondent can consider the

¶26

petitioners on vacant posts. The candidates who had
applied from ESBC category and similarly situated, as
the present petitioners, have subsequently been
appointed.

¶27

7.Mr. Bajaj, learned counsel for respondents
submits that petitioners had made wrong statement in
the applications. In the applications they

¶28

represented that they possessed caste certificates

¶29

4 wp14113.17

¶30

and also non creamy layer certificates. In fact,

¶31

they were not possessing the required certificates
and it was specifically stated in the advertisement
that in case wrong statement is made in the
application, application is liable to be rejected.
The petitioners have made wrong statement. Learned
counsel further submits that appointments are given
considering the orders passed by this court for a
period of 11 months only. If petitioners would have
produced caste certificates and non creamy layer
certificates they would have been considered.

¶32

8.We have considered submissions canvassed by
learned counsel of respective parties. We have also

¶33

gone through the applications filed by the
petitioners pursuant to the advertisement. In the
applications the petitioners have made statement that
they possess necessary caste certificates and non
creamy layer certificates. The statement of the
petitioners is erroneous. Admittedly on the date of

¶34

5 wp14113.17

¶35

application, petitioners did not possess caste

¶36

certificate nor possessed non creamy layer
certificate. It is submitted by petitioners that
they had applied for caste certificates. The
petitioner could not have got caste certificates
after November, 2014 i.e. the date when this Court
stayed the policy decision of the Government of
giving reservation to the Maratha community.

¶37

9.In absence of certificates of caste, so also

¶38

non creamy layer certificates the petitioners did not
satisfy minimum requirements to accept their forms in
ESBC category. The anomalous situation arises
because subsequently stay has been granted by this
court and thereafter caste certificates could not
have been issued to the petitioners.

¶39

10.We would have considered the case of the
petitioners if the petitioners had produced caste
certificate and necessary directions could have been

¶40

6 wp14113.17

¶41

given to consider the case of the petitioners.

¶42

11.At the first instance, the petitioners made

¶43

wrong statement in the application that they are
possessing caste certificates and non creamy layer
certificates. However, in fact, the petitioners did
not possess either of the certificates. On this count
itself case of the petitioners cannot be considered.
Even otherwise subsequently also petitioners could
not produce caste certificates or non creamy layer
certificates.

¶44

12.Considering the above, it would not be
possible for us to give directions to the respondents
in this regard, however, if respondents are inclined
to consider case of the petitioner, they may do so.

¶45

13.Writ petition accordingly disposed of. No
costs.

¶46

 [SUNIL K.KOTWAL, J.] [S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J.]
mahajansb/

Shri Ambaji Dilip Jadhav and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Shri Ambaji Dilip Jadhav and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Samruddhi Suryakant Rokade Under Guardian Vaishali Suryakant Rokade Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Aurangabad Zilla Nyayalayin Bailiff Karmachari Sanghatana Aurangabad through Its Current President Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vishwambhar Amrutrao Kokil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Madhav Laxman Kadam and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Rohidas Babasaheb Waghmare Vs Nandkumar and Another

Babasaheb Tawji Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others