Petitioner sought appointment as a Craft Teacher. The Court held that earlier directions leading to the appointment of other General Category candidates meant the post was not vacant. No indefeasible right arose. Petition dismissed.
No relief granted as the post is no longer vacant due to prior appointments directed by this Court.
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)
949-wp-2503-2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2503 OF 2020
VILAS KANTAPPA KATKAR
..PETITIONER
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS..RESPONDENTS
Mr. Subhash K. Savangikar, Advocate for the
Petitioner.
Mr. S. B. Yawalkar, AGP for Respondents-State.
Mr. P. P. More, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 and
3.
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
S. G. DIGE, JJ.
DATED : 04th JANUARY, 2022.
PER COURT:-
1.Mr. Savangikar, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that, petitioner, pursuant to
the advertisement issued by respondents applied for
the post of Craft Teacher. The petitioner had
secured 118 marks out of 200 marks and he was at
serial no.4. Two posts were meant for General
Category. The learned counsel further submits
that, present petitioner is eligible to be
appointed. The candidates at serial nos.1 and 2
are out of race. The petitioner is at serial no.2.
He is required to be appointed.
2.Mr. More, learned counsel submits that,
other candidates had filed Writ Petitions before
this Court bearing Writ Petition Nos.6049/2017,
2030/2018 and 4390/2017. This Court had passed
orders giving direction to appoint those
(2) 949-wp-2503-2020
petitioners. In view of that, respondents had no
option but to appoint all those petitioners. Now
the post is not vacant. The learned counsel
further submits that, the selection process is of
the year 2015 and petition is filed in the year
2020.
3.It is trite that, only because name of
person appears in the select list, he does not get
the indefeasible right to be appointed. The select
list also may not be valid for number of years.
The petitioner had approached this Court after five
years. Prior to that, other persons who are in the
select list had approached before this Court and
this Court in Writ Petition No.4390/2017 and
6049/2017 had directed the respondents to appoint
those petitioners. They were from General
Category. Only two posts were meant for General
Category.
4.The appointments of those persons who are
already appointed are not assailed in the present
writ petition nor the orders of this Court.
5.In light of that, no relief can be granted
to the petitioner.
6.Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
Devendra/January-2022
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to appointment to the post of Craft Teacher in view of prior directions given to respondents that resulted in vacancies being filled.
Whether a delay of five years in approaching the Court precludes the granting of relief.
Whether the petitioner acquires an indefeasible right to appointment merely because his name appears in the select list.
Vilas Kantappa Katkar
The State of Maharashtra
S. V. Gangapurwala
S. G. Dige
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court