Dipika Kashinath Khairnar v. The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And ORS.

* 1/7 * 906-WP-7624-2017.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7624 OF 2017 Dipika Kashinath Khairanar, Age: 29 years, Occupation: Service, Residing at Post : Chaundhane, Taluka: Satana, Dist. Nashik 423301.

......Petitioner

Versus

1 The State of Maharashtra Through Secretary, General Administration Department, having its office at Mantralaya, Mumbai- 400 032.

2 The Secretary, Maharashtra Public Service Commission, [M.S.] Mumbai, Having office at Cooperage, Telephone Nigam Building, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai 400 021.

3 Kiran Vishwanath Rapatwar C/o. Sachin Ramgirwar, Near Income Tax Colony, Janardhan Nagar, Nanded, Dist. Nanded 431605.

4 Vijaya Hanumant Honkalashkar Plot No.4, Adarsha Colony, Himanalaya Building, Tamajainnagar, Satara - 415002.

* 2/7 * 906-WP-7624-2017.doc 5 Snehal Subhasrao Patil At Post: Prayag Chikhali, Dist: Kolhapur-416229.

6 Suchitra Devrao Jadhav Shingewadi, Shinde Niwas, Kave Road, Near Hand Water Pump, Solapur-413252.

7 Yogeshwari Ramesh Nande, At-Post Palsap, Dist-Osmanabad 413509.

8 Sujata Genbhau Bhaterao C/o. Dhage Kisorkumar Murlidhar Ghati Road, Chakuli Niwas, Jai Bheem Nagar, Near Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Statue, Aurangabad-431001.

9 Sarita Bajirao More At-Sarawade, Kudale Galli Tukaram Niwas, Back Side Vitthalai Temple, Dist: Kolhapur-416212.

10 Sulakshana Shaliwahar Pawar Barbole Plot, Shivshakati Ground Barbole Plot, Solapur-413411.

11 Ashish Amgounda Patil At-Post Bambavade, Patil Galli, Dist: Sangali-415410.

12 Jaymala Ramrao Patange C/o. Vijay N. Bhosale, N.H.S.Vijay Nagar Mauli Niwas, Nanded, Dist. Nanded 431602.

13 Nilofer Balasaheb Patel C/o. B.P.Shaikh, Ambajohai Road, Taj Villa Khori Galli, Shivaji Chowk,

* 3/7 * 906-WP-7624-2017.doc Dist: Latur, 413512 14 Shital Subhashrao Shinde C/o. Shinde Subhash Tukaram Ravikunj, Behind Rahul Hotel Aayodhya Nagar, Dist. Beed, Pin Code - 431517.

.......Respondents Mr. Rajiv B. Chavan, Senior Advocate with Ms. Priyanka B. Chavan and Ms. Bhavana Knichi i/by Mr. Ashish S. Gaikwad, Advocates for Petitioner.

Mr. N.C.Walimbe, AGP for Respondent-State.

CORAM :

CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, & SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, & SANDEEP K. SHINDE, JJ.

SANDEEP K. SHINDE, JJ.

DATE :

DATE : July 7, 2017.

July 7, 2017.

JUDGMENT : [Per Shri Sandeep K. Shinde, J.] JUDGMENT : [Per Shri Sandeep K. Shinde, J.] The Maharashtra Public Service Commission (In The Maharashtra Public Service Commission (In short '

short 'MPSC MPSC')- Respondent No.2 undertook process to select ')- Respondent No.2 undertook process to select candidates for the post of Lecturer-District Institute of candidates for the post of Lecturer-District Institute of Education and Training Group-B. The Petitioner applied for Education and Training Group-B. The Petitioner applied for the said post from Open Woman Category/General Female the said post from Open Woman Category/General Female Category though she belongs to OBC (Other Backward Class). Category though she belongs to OBC (Other Backward Class). The Petitioner secured 106 marks in written examination and The Petitioner secured 106 marks in written examination and 31 marks in interview. Her score of 137 marks was more than 31 marks in interview. Her score of 137 marks was more than the marks secured by Respondent Nos.3 to 14 herein. The the marks secured by Respondent Nos.3 to 14 herein. The

* 4/7 * 906-WP-7624-2017.doc MPSC-Respondent No.2, however, declined merit and selected MPSC-Respondent No.2, however, declined merit and selected Respondent Nos.3 to 14. Aggrieved by such a selection Respondent Nos.3 to 14. Aggrieved by such a selection process, the Petitioner has challenged the selection process process, the Petitioner has challenged the selection process and result thereof to the extent of candidates selected from and result thereof to the extent of candidates selected from the Open Woman Category for the subject post vide Original the Open Woman Category for the subject post vide Original Application No.82 of 2017.

Application No.82 of 2017.

That pending the Original Application, she applied That pending the Original Application, she applied for interim relief to restrain Respondent Nos.1 and 2 from for interim relief to restrain Respondent Nos.1 and 2 from taking any further steps in making appointments to the taking any further steps in making appointments to the aforesaid post from Open Woman Category. In other words, aforesaid post from Open Woman Category. In other words, she would seek relief that no appointment orders be issued in she would seek relief that no appointment orders be issued in favour of Respondent Nos.3 to 14.

favour of Respondent Nos.3 to 14.

The Original Application No.82 of 2017 was filed on The Original Application No.82 of 2017 was filed on 19.1.2017; the Miscellaneous Application No.200 of 2017 was 19.1.2017; the Miscellaneous Application No.200 of 2017 was filed on 9.5.2017 for interim relief. It appears the Respondent filed on 9.5.2017 for interim relief. It appears the Respondent Nos.3 to 14 have filed their affidavit-in-reply on Nos.3 to 14 have filed their affidavit-in-reply on 12.6.2017 12.6.2017 in in the Original Application No.82 of 2017 and refuted the claim the Original Application No.82 of 2017 and refuted the claim of the Petitioner/Original Applicant. It appears from the of the Petitioner/Original Applicant. It appears from the records that on records that on 18.6.2017 18.6.2017, the Petitioner had filed affidavit-in- , the Petitioner had filed affidavit-inrejoinder to the reply filed by the Respondent Nos.3 to 14. rejoinder to the reply filed by the Respondent Nos.3 to 14.

* 5/7 * 906-WP-7624-2017.doc On 22.6.2017, the Original Application was On 22.6.2017, the Original Application was admitted after hearing both the sides. The Tribunal in its admitted after hearing both the sides. The Tribunal in its order clarified that order clarified that "Appointments if any made shall be Appointments if any made shall be subject to outcome of this O.A subject to outcome of this O.A ."

That Petitioner's Miscellaneous Application was That Petitioner's Miscellaneous Application was also heard on the same day wherein the following order was also heard on the same day wherein the following order was passed:

passed:

"In view of the order passed in O.A., "In view of the order passed in O.A., nothing survives in M.A. No.200 of 2017." nothing survives in M.A. No.200 of 2017." Hence, Misc. Application is disposed of Hence, Misc. Application is disposed of accordingly."

accordingly."

The Petitioner/Original Applicant being aggrieved The Petitioner/Original Applicant being aggrieved by the orders dated 22.6.2017 has preferred this Writ Petition by the orders dated 22.6.2017 has preferred this Writ Petition and in substance, has challenged the impugned result dated and in substance, has challenged the impugned result dated 31.12.2016 to the extent of selection of Respondent Nos.3 to 31.12.2016 to the extent of selection of Respondent Nos.3 to 14 from the Open Woman Category for the subject post. In 14 from the Open Woman Category for the subject post. In prayer clause (b), the Petitioner seeks order to grant stay to prayer clause (b), the Petitioner seeks order to grant stay to the extent of appointment and joining of Respondent Nos.3 to the extent of appointment and joining of Respondent Nos.3 to 14 to the subject post and further seeks directions to the 14 to the subject post and further seeks directions to the learned Tribunal to dispose of the Original Application within a learned Tribunal to dispose of the Original Application within a period of four weeks.

period of four weeks.

* 6/7 * 906-WP-7624-2017.doc Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned AGP for the State.

the learned AGP for the State.

We have perused the pleadings and the orders We have perused the pleadings and the orders passed in Original Application and in the Miscellaneous passed in Original Application and in the Miscellaneous Application. In our view, the order passed by the Tribunal Application. In our view, the order passed by the Tribunal making appointments of the Respondent Nos.3 to 14 subject making appointments of the Respondent Nos.3 to 14 subject to outcome of the Original Application, sufficiently protects to outcome of the Original Application, sufficiently protects interest of the Petitioner. The Substantive prayer made in interest of the Petitioner.

The Substantive prayer made in prayer clause (a) has not been worked out or addressed to the prayer clause (a) has not been worked out or addressed to the Tribunal and since the Tribunal is seized of the matter and Tribunal and since the Tribunal is seized of the matter and since the Tribunal has protected interest of the Petitioner by since the Tribunal has protected interest of the Petitioner by passing the order as aforesaid, in our view, no case is made out passing the order as aforesaid, in our view, no case is made out to interfere with the orders dated 22.6.2017 passed by the to interfere with the orders dated 22.6.2017 passed by the Tribunal. It is, however, clarified that we have not decided the Tribunal.

It is, however, clarified that we have not decided the issue in the Petition on merits since the Tribunal is seized of issue in the Petition on merits since the Tribunal is seized of the matter. Looking into the facts of the case, the learned MAT the matter.

* 7/7 * 906-WP-7624-2017.doc hearing. With aforesaid direction, the Petition is disposed of hearing. With aforesaid direction, the Petition is disposed of with no order as to costs.

with no order as to costs.

(SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J) SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J) (SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J) (SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J)