The High Court quashed an order placing a compassionate appointee on a supernumerary post for failing to submit a Validity Certificate, holding that the order was erroneous as the petitioner never claimed reservation benefits.
The order placing the petitioner on a supernumerary post was quashed and set aside.
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 wp 1433.2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
919 WRIT PETITION NO.1433 OF 2020
PANDURANG SAMBHAJI TOTEWAD
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
...
Advocate for Petitioner: Mr. Thorat Chandrakant R.
AGP for Respondent No. 1: Mr. A. S. Shinde
Advocate for Respondent No. 2: Mr. A. S. Bajaj
...
CORAM:S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
S. G. DIGE, JJ.
DATE:04th JANUARY, 2022
PER COURT:
1.The Petitioner is appointed as Lower Division
Clerk with Respondent No. 2 on compassionate
ground on or about 23.04.1997. On or about
31.12.2019, the Petitioner was placed on
supernumerary post on the ground that the
Petitioner belongs to reserved category and that
the Petitioner has not submitted the Validity
Certificate.
2.Mr. Thorat, learned Counsel for the
Petitioner submits that the Petitioner was not
given the benefit of reservation at any point of
time. Even, in the Seniority List prepared in the
2 wp 1433.2020
year-2021, his name was shown from General
category. The Petitioner had also represented that
he will not take benefit of reservation. The order
placing the Petitioner on supernumerary post is
erroneous. The learned Counsel relies on the
Judgment of the division Bench of this Court in
case of Ajinkya s/o. Rajiv Khadatkar Vs. Managing
Director, Maharashtra State Electricity
Distribution Co. Ltd. and others reported in
2019 (6) ALL M R 187.
3.Mr. Bajaj, learned Counsel for Respondent
No. 2 submits that all along in the Service Book
the Petitioner is shown from the Scheduled Tribe
category. In the Seniority List published of
Nanded Circle on 17.07.2007 the Petitioner is
shown at Serial No. 106 and his tribe is reflected
as belonging to Scheduled Tribe. The Petitioner
was in the zone of consideration for the
promotional post as the Petitioner belonged to
Scheduled Tribe category and the relaxation was
also provided to him. The Policy has been prepared
under the Board Resolution dated 29.09.2010 for
3 wp 1433.2020
appointing the persons on compassionate ground. If
the person does not desire to get the benefit of
reservation he has to submit the certificate
regarding not availing the benefits. In the Roster
Register also the Petitioner is shown to belong to
Scheduled Tribe. The Petitioner failed to submit
the Validity Certificate, as such is rightly
placed on supernumerary post as per the
Administrative Order No. 592 dated 31.12.2019.
4.We have considered the submissions canvassed
by the learned Counsel for the parties.
5.It is not disputed that the Petitioner was
appointed on compassionate ground. It is submitted
that the Petitioner was considered in zone of
promotion from the reserved category, however, the
Petitioner was not promoted. If a person is
appointed on compassionate ground then it is not
as against the reserved post. The Judgment of the
Division Bench of this Court in case of Ajinkya
s/o. Rajiv Khadatkar Vs. Managing Director,
Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co.
4 wp 1433.2020
Ltd. and others(Supra) would squarely apply. No
separate Rules are pointed out. On the contrary,
in the affidavit of Respondent No. 2 it has been
clarified that if the person appointed on
compassionate ground does not want to avail the
benefit of reservation he should give such
certificate. The Petitioner does not dispute that
he has never claimed the benefit of reservation
and would never claim the benefit of reservation
in the employment with Respondent No. 2.
6. In light of that, the order placing the
Petitioner on supernumerary post is quashed and
set aside. It is made clear that the Petitioner is
not entitled for the benefit of reservation in the
employment with Respondent No. 2 from the initial
date of appointment till he attains the age of
superannuation.
7.The Writ Petition accordingly allowed in
above terms and stands disposed of. No costs.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a person appointed on compassionate grounds without claiming reservation benefits should be placed on a supernumerary post upon failure to submit a Validity Certificate.
Whether the order placing the petitioner on a supernumerary post due to lack of a Validity Certificate should be quashed given his history of not availing reservation benefits.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Pandurang Sambhaji Totewad
The State of Maharashtra
Another
S. V. Gangapurwala
S. G. Dige
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court