A police constable challenged non-selection for Police Patil posting due to residence queries. Maintaining the Tribunal's probable view that the petitioner was not a resident of the constituency, based on objective document assessment, the Court dismissed the writ petition.
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.
14-WP.15950.2022
jvs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 15950 OF 2022
Sou Rajashri Rajgonda Patil } Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. } Respondents
Mr. Dhairyasheel Sutar with Ms. Kavita D. Vijapure for the petitioner.
Mr. P. P. Kakade, Government Pleader with Mr. R. P. Kadam, AGP for respondents 1 to 5 (State).
CORAM: S. V. GANGAPURWALA, Act.CJ.& SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATE: JANUARY 4, 2023
P.C.:
1. The petitioner had participated in the selection process of Police Patil for village Khidrapur. The petitioner stood at Sr. No. 1 at merit list. However, the petitioner was not selected. A complaint was made that the petitioner does not reside at village Khidrapur. The same was considered by the SubDivisional Officer (SDO) and respondent no. 6 was appointed as Police Patil, Khidrapur. The petitioner challenged the same before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai (hereafter “the Tribunal”, for short). The Tribunal remitted the matter to the SDO for further inquiry. After remand, the SDO recorded some statements and thereafter, again held that the petitioner is a resident of village Jugul and not of village Khidrapur. The petitioner again challenged the same by filing Original Application No. 715 of 2017. The same is dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the present petition.
1
14-WP.15950.2022
2. Mr. Sutar, learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the Tribunal failed to consider the documents produced by the petitioner, such as Voter ID, Certificate of Talathi, the voters list of village Khidrapur, School Leaving Certificate, Nationality-Domicile Certificate issued by the Executive Magistrate, the LPG Gas connection, etc. All these documents unequivocally establish that the petitioner is permanent resident of village Khidrapur. The petitioner has a clinic at village Jugul. It is only on that ground and a Ration Card was obtained showing residence at Jugul that itself would not mean that the petitioner is permanent resident of Jugul. The distance between Jugul and Khidrapur is 4 kms. All these aspects were required to be considered by the Tribunal.
3. We have heard learned AGP also. 4. It is not in dispute that the petitioner runs a clinic at village Jugul. The petitioner is a medical practitioner. It would also appear that the son of the petitioner has purchased a scooter showing residence at village Jugul. Gas connection is also obtained at village Jugul. There are contrary documents. Some of the documents, such as certificates of Tahsildar, Gramsevak, Sarpanch are of the year 2017, i.e., after the notified date.
5. A probable view has been taken by the SDO and the Tribunal. The SDO has arrived at subjective satisfaction based on the objective assessment of the documents available with him. As probable view is taken by the Tribunal, no interference is called for. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
SALUNKE J V
Digitally signed by SALUNKE J V Date: 2023.01.05 15:00:34 +0530
(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)
2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ jurisdiction should be exercised to interfere with the Tribunal's probable view regarding the petitioner's non-residence.
Sou Rajashri Rajgonda Patil
The State of Maharashtra
S.V. Gangapurwala
Sandeep V. Marne
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
