Allowed

Nikhil Santosh Chaudhari v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC5 Sept 2018WP/6064/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court dismissed the Tribunal's order holding that horizontal reservation posts for Ex-serviceman and part-time OBC candidates must be filled only from their respective categories. The Court ruled that subsequent Government Resolutions mandate these posts be filled from the general OBC category if specific subgroups are unavailable, ordering respondent authorities to consider the petition

What did the court decide?

The Tribunal order set aside; Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 directed to consider petitioner and respondent No.3 for the post of Measurer within four weeks.

Nikhil Santosh Chaudhari Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

( 1 ) wp6064.14

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 6064 OF 2014

¶4

Nikhil Santosh Chaudhari,...PETITIONER
Age-25 years, Occu-Nil,
R/o. Plot NO.28/2, Gut NO.331/1,
Dattatraya Nagar, Old Kanalda Road,
Jalgaon

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

1. The State of Maharashtra ... RESPONDENTS Through its Secretary (Command Area Development) Water Resolurces Department, M.S.Mantralaya, Mumbai-32

¶7

2.The Member Secretary,
Regional Selectinon Committee-cum-
Superintending Engineer (Doors)
Central Design Institute &
Zonal Officer,
Nashik Zone, Nashik

¶8

3. Roshan Punjaram Bhadane, At post Khirmani, Tq. Baglan, Dist. Nashik

¶9

Mr.Anil S. Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr.P.R.Katneshwarkar, Advocate for respondent No.3
Mr.S.K.Tambe, AGP for the respondent/State

¶10

CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA &
S.M.GAVHANE,JJ.
DATED :05.09.2018

¶11

( 2 ) wp6064.14

¶12

ORAL JUDGMENT [PER:S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.]

¶13

.Pursuant to the advertisement dated
31.12.2011 the petitioner and respondent No.3
applied for the post of Measurer from the OBC
category. There were total four posts for OBC
category. From the said four posts, one post was for
OBC woman, one for OBC Ex-Serviceman, one for part
time employee and one other.

¶14

2.From the OBC category one Badgujar Gajanan
Eknath was selected and one Kapadne Mahindra Popat
who had secured 112 marks was included in the list
from the OBC category as no female candidate from
said OBC category was available. Still there were
two posts, one for OBC (Ex-service) and second for
OBC part time. The said posts meant for horizontal
reservation were not filled in. The petitioner
approached the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal
by filing Original Application No.939/2012. The
tribunal in its judgment dated 07.01.2014 observed
that as far as the post of Ex-serviceman OBC is
concerned, as no eligible candidate is available,
the post cannot be filled in from OBC General
category. The same was based on Government
Resolution dated 16.04.1981. The tribunal further

¶15

observed that as far as the other post OBC (part
time) is concerned the same would go to the verticle
reservation as from said horizontal reservation post
for part time candidate was not available. The
tribunal has considered that respondent No.3 has got
more marks than the petitioner as such respondent
No.3 should be considered for the appointment and if
respondent No.3 does not respond then the
petitioner's claim be considered for the
appointment. The petitioner assails the said order
by filing the instant writ petition.

¶16

3.Learned AGP submits that the tribunal has
consideredtheGovernmentResolutiondated
16.04.1981 which states that the post of Ex-
serviceman cannot be filled up unless there is
compliance of Clause-II of the said Government
Resolution which states that the post for ex-
serviceman cannot be filled in, if the candidate is
not available.

¶17

4.Mr. Bajaj, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Katneshwarkar, learned counsel
for respondent No.3 relied on the Government
Resolution dated 16.03.1999 to submit that if the

¶18

persons from the horizontal reservation are not
available, the said post has to be filled in from
the member of the verticle reservation.

¶19

5.According to the learned AGP the Government
Resolution dated 16.04.1981 is not superseded and as
such the same was relied.

¶20

6.Government Resolution dated 16.03.1999 is
subsequently issued based on the judgment of this
Court and the Apex Court. The reference to the said
judgments is given in the said Government Resolution
itself. Naturally the said the Government Resolution
has to be implemented.

¶21

7.Considering the above, two remaining posts
from the OBC category meant for Ex-serviceman and
part time shall be filled in from the persons of OBC
category as per the final list published. The
respondent No.3 has secured 109 marks and the
petitioner has secured 108 marks. The petitioner and
respondent No.3 are required to be considered for
the appointment.

¶22

8.In the light of above, we pass the

¶23

( 5 ) wp6064.14

¶24

following order.

¶25

ORDER

¶26

I.The order passed by the tribunal
is set aside.

¶27

II.Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 shall
consider the petitioner and respondent No.3
for appointment to the post of Measurer
from the OBC category as the persons from
the OBC EX-serviceman and OBC part time are
not available, pursuant to the said
advertisement. Same shall be considered
within a period of four weeks.

¶28

III.The writ petition is, accordingly,
allowed. No costs.

¶29

[S.M.GAVHANE,J.]

¶30

 [S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J.]

¶31

VishalK/ wp6064.14

Nikhil Santosh Chaudhari v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nikhil Santosh Chaudhari 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nagesh Ankush Pallewar Vs the State of Mah. and Ors.

Ashlesha Anil Shimpi and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

K S Salunkhe Vs State of Mah

Sayyad Jafar Karimoddin Kazi and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Nileshkumar Pruthaviraj Thakur Vs Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nandurbar Thr Member Secretary and Ors.

Pathan Mohsin Khan Mehboob Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others