Dismissed

Anjali Prataprao Ghare v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC7 Aug 2018WP/253/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a writ petition challenging a Government Resolution denying reservation based on income criteria. The court held that the petitioner, having participated in the selection process without raising objections at the time, cannot subsequently contest the terms and conditions of the advertisement.

What did the court decide?

Dismissed the writ petition with no costs.

Anjali Prataprao Ghare Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

1 wp 253.18

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 253 OF 2018

¶4

Dr. Anjali Prataprao Ghare.. Petitioner
Versus

¶5

The State of Maharashtra and others.. Respondents

¶6

Shri V. D. Salunke, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri N. T. Bhagat, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1
to 4.

¶7

Shri M. R. Kulkarni, Advocate for Respondent
No. 5.

¶8

CORAM: S. V. GANGAPURWALA & SUNIL K. KOTWAL, JJ.

¶9

DATE:7 th August, 2018

¶10

PER COURT :

¶11

1.The petitioner assails the order passed by

¶12

the Deputy Commissioner, Women and Child Welfare
Commissionerate, so also, seeks declaration that
the clause nos. 9 and 10 of the Government

¶13

Resolutiondated25.05.2001denying30%

¶14

reservation for the person belonging to Creamy
Layer is unconstitutional and violative of Article

¶15

14, 15(3) and 16 of the Constitution of India.

¶16

2.Mr. Salunke, learned counsel for the

¶17

2 wp 253.18

¶18

petitioner submits that the advertisement was
issued for filling in the post of 'Assistant
Professor' pursuant to the same the petitioner
applied from Open – Female category i.e. 30%
reservation. The advertisement discloses that the
candidate should have experience of four years as
a lecturer in pay scale of Rs. 15600-39100 and
Grade Pay of Rs. 6600. The petitioner submitted
online application along with non Creamy Layer
certificate. The petitioner was selected from Open

¶19

- Female category. The non Creamy Layer
certificate of the petitioner was sent to the
Deputy Commissioner for verification. The Deputy
Commissioner raised the grievance that the Non
Creamy Layer certificate must be submitted showing
the income statement of the husband of the
petitioner. According to the learned counsel, the
Government Resolution dated 25.05.2001 provides
that Non Creamy Layer certificate is mandatory for
claiming reservation under the Open - Female
category. Clause no. 10 states that in case of

¶20

3 wp 253.18

¶21

married woman, husband's income would be
calculated instead of parents' income for the
purpose of Non Creamy Layer certificate. The said
Government Resolution is evidently different than
Government Resolution dated 25.03.2013, regarding
OBC reservation. In the said Government Resolution
it is stated that the parents' income would only
be considered for considering the Non Creamy Layer
status of the candidate. The learned counsel

¶22

submits that the salaries of the Assistant
Professors in private or Government Medical
Colleges is much beyond the income limit of Non
Creamy Layer category. In view of that, it would
be impossible that any female candidate would take
benefit of reservation. The learned counsel
submits that the clause in the advertisement, more
particularly Clause 4.2, is also erroneous.

¶23

3.Mr. Kulkarni, the learned counsel submits

¶24

that the petitioner participated in the selection
process pursuant to the advertisement and now she

¶25

4 wp 253.18

¶26

cannot turn around and contend otherwise. The
learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Apex
Court dated 05.03.2008 in a case of Dhananjay
Malik and others Vs. State of Uttaranchal and

¶27

others inCivil Appeal No. 1771 of 2008.

¶28

4.We have also heard the learned Assistant
Government Pleader.

¶29

5. We have considered the submissions canvassed

¶30

by the learned counsel for respective parties.

¶31

6.It is not disputed that the petitioner had
participated in the selection process pursuant to
the advertisement on her own volition without any
demur. The petitioner at no point of time till the
selection process was concluded ever raised any
grievance to the terms and conditions in the
advertisement.

¶32

7.The petitioner after having participated in

¶33

the selection process pursuant to the

¶34

advertisement and on the terms and conditions

¶35

5 wp 253.18

¶36

enumeratedintheadvertisement,cannot

¶37

subsequently make a grievance with regard to the
said terms and conditions in the said selection
process.

¶38

8.We could have considered the challenge raised
by the petitioner to the advertisement and the
Government Resolution had the petitioner assailed
the advertisement before participating in the
selection process.

¶39

9.Considering the above, as the petitioner had
participated in the selection process without any
demur, the grievance raised by the petitioner in
the present petition cannot be considered.

¶40

10.Writ Petition, as such, is disposed of. No
costs.

¶41

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

¶42

marathe

Anjali Prataprao Ghare v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anjali Prataprao Ghare v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramesh Narayan Lobhe and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Ashok Bajirao Girwale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Jyoti Kishor Pardeshi Vs Nandkumar and Others

Santosh Kishanrao Chavan and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Kalidas Shivajirao Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ajit Mahadeo Ghodeswar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others