Mrs. Varsha Vivek Suryavunshi v. The Managing Director, The Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd And ORS

Dond

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6541 OF 2013 Mrs. Varsha Vivek Suryavunshi ..Petitioner.

Vs.

The Managing Director, The Maharashtra State Electricity Distributiion Co Ltd & Ors.

..Respondents.

----- Mr. A.S. Desai for Petitioner.

Mr. P.P. Chavan a/w Nirav Shah i/b M/s Little & Co., for Respondent No.1.

Mr. C.P. Yadav, AGP for Respondent No.5.

----- CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL & A.S. GADKARI, JJ.

DATE : 6th January 2015.

P.C.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

The Petitioner participated in the selection process undertaken by the Respondent No.1 in the year 2010. The Petitioner's contention is that, out of 30% quota reserved for woman candidate, the Respondent selected two women candidates, however, the name of the Petitioner was not in the waiting list. Without appointing the Petitioner, the Respondent No.1 appointed other candidates.

The learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1 draws

our attention to the affidavit-in-reply filed by the Respondent no.1 and particularly paragraph-3. He states that the selection process for the year 2010 was already over. He states that the said select list was valid upto 4th February 2012. Thereafter, the second advertisement was published in the year 2012 for various posts including the post of Executive Engineer (Distribution) and the selection process for the same is also completed. The Petitioner relates to the selection process for the year 2010 and the said select list was valid upto 4th February 2012. Thereafter, the second selection process was initiated and was completed. It is submitted that the Respondent No.1 has not maintained the waiting list of women candidates against women's reservation and selection process itself has been completed.

In the facts of the case and in view of further development in the matter, we do not find any merit in the petition. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed.

However, it is clarified that dismissal of the petition shall not affect the Petitioner's participation in the interview in future conducted by the Respondent No.1-Authority.

(A.S. GADKARI, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.)